Surinder Singh vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

One Sh. Prem Singh was working as a Teacher in the Education Department, who died in harness. His son, petitioner herein, approached the

respondents for appointing him on compassionate grounds. He came to be appointed against the post of Class IV vide Order No.CEOD/G-

3/209-11 dated 8.4.2005. He accepted the order and joined the service. After a lapse of more than ten months he filed the present petition

seeking indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to appoint him against the post of Laboratory Assistant or Junior Assistant instead of

Class IV employee, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

The grievance of petitioner is that though he was eligible to be appointed against the post of Junior Assistant or Laboratory Assistant, but he

came to be appointed against Class IV post. It is contended that the respondents were under a legal obligation to appoint him against the post of

Junior Assistant or Laboratory Assistant.

Respondents have filed the reply and resisted the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admit. With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

It is apt to reproduce relevant para of Rule 3 of SRO 43 herein:

Appointment under these rules: - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or order for the time being in force regulating the procedure

for recruitment in any service or posts under the Government, an eligible family member of a person specified in rule 2 may be appointed against a

vacancy in the lowest rank of a non-gazetted service having qualification above Matriculation or to a class IV post if the candidate has read upto

Matric.

SRO 43 provides an exception just to save the dependents of the deceased Government employee from vagrancy and destitution. It is just to

alleviate the financial distress by offering sustenance. The appointment on compassionate grounds is the discretion of the Government and is to be

made in the lowest rank of a non-gazetted service. Petitioners-dependents cannot claim such as a matter of right.

The petitioner came to be appointed against the post of Class IV, he accepted the same and now cannot seek a direction to the respondents to

appoint him against a higher post.

The Apex Court in a case Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi, has observed that it is well settled that appointment on

compassionate ground is given only on pure humanitarian consideration and no appointment can be claimed as a matter of right. The main object of

such appointment is to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of

para-7 of the said judgment herein:

It is well settled that employment on compassionate ground is given only on pure humanitarian consideration and no appointment can be claimed as

a matter of right. The main object was to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee. It is also well settled that

employment under compassionate ground cannot be made in absence of rules or instructions issued by the Government or any public authority.

This Court in case Suraj Singh v. State of J&K, 1999 SLJ 396, held as under:

Since the petitioner has no vested right to be appointed on compassionate ground, he cannot ask for a particular post. Further, it is wrong to

suggest that such appointments should be made without considering the financial condition and the antecedents of the candidate seeking

appointment because it is only a person in distress who has to be shown compassion and not a person who seeks appointment to gain an official

status. Moreover, the petitioner has not pleaded the circumstances in which the private respondents were appointed against higher post on

compassionate grounds, in the absence of which it is not possible to make a comparison.

A Division Bench of this Court has also taken the same view in Tariq Ahmad Ganai v. State of J&K, SLJ 2001 385. The Court has held that a

person appointed on compassionate grounds cannot claim appointment to a higher post. The rule does not vest any substantive right to the affected

person.

The Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another, , has observed that parity cannot be claimed while

applying for appointment on compassionate grounds. Courts cannot pass directions in order to direct the State authority to appoint a person on a

higher post.

This Court in Aashiq Hassain Shah Vs. State and Another, (SWP No. 114/2006 decided on 14.5.2007 in Srinagar Wing) also laid down the

same principle.

Applying the test to the instant case, this petition merits to be dismissed.

Viewed thus, the writ petition is dismissed along with all CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.