- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 25. 5. 2006 passed by the Director, Allahabad Museum rejecting representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no vacancy available for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said order.
(2.) SRI B. P. SRIvastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been declined only on the ground that only 5% vacancies in class-IVth are reserved for com passionate appointment and fixation of 5% vacancies for compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. He further contended that the financial condition of the petitioner is very weak and, therefore, the respondents are under a statutory obligation to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. However, I do not find any force in any of the aforesaid submission. Com passionate appointment is not a regular source of recruitment but it should be provided strictly in accordance with rules, if any, and not otherwise. The-Apex Court, in L. I. C. of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and another, AIR 1994 SC 2148 held that hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to com passionate appointment de hors the statutory provisions. It was also held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, since a public office is not heritable. In State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh, 2007 (4) SCC 778, it was said "dependents of employee died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one con ferred, if any, by the employer. " The Court held that if there is a scheme, claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly within the framework of scheme and not beyond that else that would be illegal. In Somvir Singh (supra), the Apex Court further observed as under: "in our considered opinion the claim of compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. , framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on com passionate grounds. " There is no right of whatever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. Whenever certain conditions are put in with respect to age or cut off date or otherwise, it is not for the Court to relax such conditions but the same has to be followed as such. In Food Corporation of India and another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and another, JT2007 (4) SC 1, the Apex Court observed : "it is not permissible for the Court to relax the said condition relating to age of the employee. Whenever a cut off date or age is prescribed, it is bound to cause hardship in marginal cases, but that is no ground to hold the provision as directory and not mandatory. "
(3.) IN Mohan Mehto v. M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. and others, JT 2007 (11) SC 175, the Apex Court followed and reiterated the view taken in Somvir Singh (su pra ). If as a matter of policy decision, the Central Government has provided that only 5% vacancies shall be available for compassionate appointment and the said decision is not shown to be contrary to any statutory provision, this Court find it difficult to hold that limiting compassionate appointment to 5% vacancies liable to be filled in by direct recruitment is per se arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment, but such ap pointment can be claimed only in accordance with the provision or scheme made by the employer for the said purpose. It is not disputed that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority observing that no vacancy is avail able in 5% quota meant for compassionate appointment and there is nothing on record to show that the finding recorded by the competent authority is incorrect or perverse or contrary to record. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. .;