Vinod Kumar vs The State of Haryana and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.8.2005, Annexure P-5 whereby the offer

of appointment given to the petitioner on compassionate ground was withdrawn.

The father of the petitioner namely Sh.Babu Ram was working in the Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as

the Corporation), as Boiler Attendant. As per the petitioner himself, during the fag end of his service with the Corporation, the father of the

petitioner suffered with Cancer disease. He was discharged from service by the Corporation on 28.7.2003 after he was declared medically unfit

by the Medical Board. He has been paid his retiral benefits. The petitioner applied for appointment of compassionate ground and vide letter dated

31.5.2005, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Peon. The petitioner joined the services on 1.8.2005, but on 22.8.2005, the offer

was withdrawn since it was found by the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner has been made in contravention of the Haryana

Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 2003 Rules) which

came into force w.e.f. 28.2.2003. As per the respondents, under the said Rules, there is no provision of appointment on compassionate ground to

the dependents of the employees who have been declared medically unfit.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order Annexure P-5 has been passed by the respondents without giving an

opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and, therefore, the said order is illegal.

It is true that before passing the order, Annexure P-5, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner, but the said order was passed within 3 weeks of joining of the petitioner. The offer of appointment has been withdrawn

because the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the Government Instructions dated 31.3.2003, issued

consequent to framing of the 2003 Rules. Under 2003 Rules, there is no provision for giving appointment to the dependents of the Government

employees who have been declared medically unfit. Still further, it is the case of the petitioner that his father was at the fag end of his career as he

was due to retire on 31.8.2006.

In view of the said fact, we do not find that denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner confers any right on the petitioner to seek

appointment on compassionate ground in contravention to the Rules. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case State of Haryana and Another

Vs. Ankur Gupta, , held that the appointment cannot be made dehors the statutory Rules. It was held to the following effect:

xx xx xx xx

In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, it was pointed out that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction

impelled by sympathetic consideration to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not

cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana that as a rule, in public service appointments

should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source

of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service

leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises. But such

appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into

consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

xx xx xx xx

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the respondents dated 22.8.2005, Annexure P-5, which

may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition stands dismissed.