- (1.) HEARD O.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the compassionate appointment in police department. The father of the appellant, who was Constable in the police department died in harness on 25.03.1999. The appellant moved an application on 23.01.2004 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (M). No claim has been made on the ground of financial crises. The appellant has been asked to appear in the eligibility test on 15.09.2007 for the post of Sub Inspector (M). The appellant appeared in the eligibility test but failed. Thereafter, the appellant moved another application on 22.10.2007, wherein he requested for the compassionate appointment on the post of Constable. In this application, he has not explained the financial crises. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application on 29.10.2007 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Constable. For the first time, claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) on the ground that he is eligible for such post, again an application has been moved on 14.09.2009 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police). It appears that since the application claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) was moved beyond five years, the matter has been referred to the State Government. State Government vide order dated 01.12.2009 declined to relax the period. The appellant further moved an application on 19.04.2010 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Constable. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.11002 of 2012 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police). Learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.11.2013 has dismissed the writ petition, against which the appellant filed the present appeal.
(3.) THE order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned Standing Counsel after receiving instructions stated that petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after the death of his father, who worked as Constable, was considered and authorities decided to offer appointment on the post of Constable to petitioner on compassionate basis, for which a letter was issued to him on 22.01.2011 requesting him to appear in the office of Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit alongwith all testimonials so that he may be considered for appointment on the post of Constable. The said letter was received by petitioner on 31.01.2011 but he did not appear. Thereafter a reminder was also issued on 10.09.2011 still the petitioner did not appear and instead contended that he ought to have considered for the post of Sub -Inspector and not Constable. The respondents have also produced before this Court petitioner's own letter dated 12.04.2012 whereby petitioner informed the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit that since now he has already approached the High Court, therefore, he should not be compelled to join as Constable and his matter now will be decided by this Court. It is thus contended on behalf of respondents that petitioner or his family is not in penury or financial distress since they do not appear to be in the condition of starvation so as to seek employment as soon as it is made available but the real contest is for status. 3. It is submitted that Sri Mohsin Khan died on 25.03.1999 and petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 15.02.2004. At that time petitioner was having educational qualification of Intermediate and was studying in B.A. First year. The matter remain pending for consideration before authorities concerned. In the meantime petitioner passed out Graduation and, therefore, he submitted another application on 15.07.2007 requesting that now he should be considered for the post of Sub -Inspector. Since petitioner completed 21 years of age on 18.03.2006 and also became Graduate in 2006, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Establishment) requested the State Government to relax five years limitation in the case of petitioner by his letter dated 20.10.2009 but the same was not accepted by State Government and rejected vide order dated 01.12.2009. The petitioner thereafter was offered appointment on the post of Constable in 2011 but, as already observed, he did not show any interest to join on the post of Constable. 4. As a matter of proposition, it cannot be disputed that in the matter of compassionate appointment eligibility etc. has to be examined on the date when application came to be considered by authorities concerned but simultaneously it also cannot be ignored that petitioner is claiming and contesting for compassionate appointment not on the basis of his financial hardship but for his status. 5. It is well settled law that appointment on compassionate basis is not with an objective to confer a status and reservation on a post against a post. Its object is not to provide a privilege to a person whose father was in Government service to claim employment of a particular status by succession. An attempt on the part of petitioner to claim compassionate appointment with a particular status is as if a reservation of post against post based on descent and succession. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is trying to get employment on compassionate ground to mitigate the state of penury in which the family is supposed to be suffering on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner. Where the successor of a deceased Government employee is otherwise in a satisfactory financial condition and is not suffering on account of penury, the scheme of compassionate appointment would not be attracted in such a case otherwise it would make the scheme of compassionate appointment arbitrary. (See Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994 4 SCC 138; Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, 1997 8 JT 332; Director of Education (Secondary) and another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998 5 SCC 192; Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2000 10 JT 156; State of Manipur Vs. Mohd. Rajaodin, 2003 7 SCC 511; National Institute of Technology and others Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, 2007 2 SCC 481; State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, 2007 3 JT 35; General Manager State Bank of India and others Vs. Anju Jain, 2008 11 Scale 647; and, Jitendra Vs. CAT, Allahabad and others, 2008 2 ESC 769). 6.In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. " Learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent, reiterated the submissions made in Special Appeal No. 1069 of 2014; State of U.P and two others Vs. Raj Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan.;