Dilip Gupta - (1.) -This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds.
(2.) THE father of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School, he died in harness on 5.1.1992. THE petitioner who was a minor boy of 12 years when his father died, moved an application on 5.2.2003 after completing his graduation for giving him appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he filed the application on 5.2.2003, but no order has been passed. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contended that the petitioner had filed the application with considerable delay after a lapse of almost eleven years and, therefore, it should be dismissed since in such circumstances it cannot be said that there was any financial crisis in the family for which the appointment was required to be given on compassionate grounds. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it would first be appropriate to ascertain why compassionate appointment is provided to a member of the deceased employee. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions and others v. K. R. Vishwanath, 2005 AIR SCW 4102, dealt at length with the object regarding compassionate ground and observed : "As was observed in State of Haryana and others v. Rani Devi and another, AIR 1996 SC 2445, it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased-employee. In Rani Devi's case (supra) it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another, 1994 (2) SCC 718, it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations 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 and others, 1994 (4) SCC 138, that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application 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 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 crisis. 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." In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, 1989 (4) SCC 468, it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689 and Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh, 1995 (6) SCC 476. In Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998 (5) SCC 192 : 1998 (3) AWC 1772 (SC), it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased-employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision." (Emphasis supplied);