- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri B. S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by order dated 12. 10. 2004 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) whereby the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U. P. Police Head Quarter Allahabad has rejected the, representation of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Constable (M) as he did not fulfill the requisite physical standards prescribed under the Rules at the relevant time and also that he was already given benefit of appointment on compassionate basis on a Class IV post but he failed to join the said post. The petitioner's father Panch Ram Verma was enrolled in Civil Police as a Constable and he died in harness on 15. 6. 1997 leaving his widow Smt. Shobha Devi, and minor children, i. e. the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar Verma, Krishna Kumar Verma, Km. Rewati Raman Verma and Km. Anita Verma. Petitioner's date of birth is 1. 7. 1982 and he was minor at the time of death of his father. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner made an application for the post of Constable (M), which was recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Basti. After. . . . . . . . . . . side ring the case of the petitioner Deputy Inspector General of Police (Enrolment) U. P. Police Head Quarter Allahabad issued an order on 29. 8. 2 petitioner did not fulfill the requisite physical standard required for two and others v. to the post of Constable (M) and, therefore, he should be approval as under: employee by Superintendent of Police, Basti. The petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 3 claiming that he should be considered for the post of Constable (M), in view of the fact that State Government by order dated 6th December, 2001 has clarified that for recruitment to the post of police Constable (M) in the police establishment, the physical standards shall not be applied. His claim was recommended by Superintendent of Police, Basti vide letter dated 4. 7. 2002 but since no action was taken by D. I. G. , U. P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad, he filed writ petition No. 3384 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court, on 6. 11. 2003, with the following' direction : "in view of the fact that after the Government order dated 6th December, 2001, the petitioner has submitted his representation to Deputy Inspector General (Establishment) U. P. Police Head Quarter Allahabad and the Superintendent of Police, Basti has also recommended the case of the petitioner by letter dated 4th July, 2002 for considering to Deputy Inspector General of Police U. P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad. It is appropriate that claim of the petitioner as recommended by Superintendent of Police, Basti vide letter dated 4th July, 2002, be considered by respondent No. 2 expeditiously preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. " 4 Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, respondent No. 2, wade the impugned order has held that the State Government's letter dated 6th December, 2001 is prospective and would not be applicable to the petitioner, whose case was considered much earlier to the issuance of letter and he was offered appointment in accordance with eligibility and qualification as per Rules applicable on the said date and respondent No. 2 consequently rejected claim of the petitioner for the post of Constable (M ). 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that eligibility condition of physical standard was relaxed by G. O. dated 6th December, 2001 and thus respondent No. 2 was directed by this Court to reconsider his claim for the post of Constable (M) under the Rules, yet he has failed to consider the matter by applying GO. dated 6. 12. 2001. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perusing the record, in my view, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I do not find any error in the order passed by respondent No. 2. The recruitment/appointment on the basis of compassionate ground is exception and no person has any right to claim appointment on the post of a particular status. The intention is to provide immediate financial help-to the bereaved family of the deceased employee who has demised in harness leaving the family in penury. The compassionate appointment is not a regular source of recruitment and the employee cannot claim that he should be conferred or is entitled as a matter of right, a Particular post of a particular status. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide assistance bereaved family of the deceased employee, who has suffered uncial scarcity due to sudden demise of the sole bread-earner. stations pertaining to compassionate appointment confers any status nor provides reservation of a vacancy as it is not a source of recruitment where-under a person as and when become eligible may apply and claim appointment. 8. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (68) FLR 1191 (SC), it was held that as a Rule, in public service, appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications on merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid recruitment 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. 9. Again in Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998 (5) SCC 192, the Apex Court observed as under: "the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure 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 the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure. It is in the nature, of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision. Care has, therefore to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee. " 10. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the dependants of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. 11. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 LLJ 773, the Apex Court while reiterating the objective of compassionate appointment as laid down in the earlier cases further observed that the application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 12. Recently in the case of Commissioner Public Instructions and others v. K. R. Vishwanath, 2005 (107) FLR 153, the Apex Court has observed as under: "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. " 13. If the family has sufficient means to survive for years together and can take care of the minors who have turned into major after undergoing educational qualification etc. that itself would be evident to show that now the family is not in financial crises as it could have at the time of sudden demise of the deceased necessitating compassionate appointment at a late stage i. e. after several years. 14. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that unemployment is a major problem in our country. Lacs and millions educated unemployed persons are wandering for employment and even for a single petty Class IV vacancy, hundreds and thousands apply which includes not only those who possesses the minimum qualification of secondary levels or less but even graduate and postgraduate. At times it has been seen that even persons having doctorate have applied for the lowest class of service i. e. Class IV. In such a situation, public employment must be available to eligible and suitable persons to be filled in by competition and all who are willing should be given an opportunity of consideration. Asking for a vacancy to be kept reserve so as to be filled in future on the basis of notional extended distress to the family continuing for years together would amount to denial of such right of consideration to other similarly placed unemployed and destitute persons whose only fault is that their ancestors could not get the opportunity of employment and, therefore, they should also suffer the same misfortune. Compassionate appointment in fact has an element of an immediate help to the family of the deceased employee. The heirs in distress lacking sufficient and reasonable means to survive with some honour must request for such help immediately or within a reasonable time. To some extent, no doubt, it is a condition of service and the benefit available to employee in general but extension of such conditions of service to an unreasonable extent would or may erode the difference between valid and invalid and any such stretch may render the provisions of the compassionate appointment to be judged on the anvil of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which confers right of equal opportunity in public employment to all persons. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that still majority of people are continuing to be tiny, poor, starving, little Indians and still are below poverty line. Their distress and penury appears to be ever lasting, as if they are bound to live in distress permanently. Their misery and destitute is not the result of sudden demise of the sole bread-earner but is caused by their fate and for the reason of non- availability of employment. They are not in a position, even though they are alive, to earn two times simple bread what to talk of bread and butter. The distress of such persons is neither negligible nor can be ignored. In a pragmatic society, efforts had to be made to read and apply law wherever permissible which will extend an opportunity of equal consideration for public employment to public at large irrespective of their lineage ancestral hierarchy etc. 15. It is not disputed that as long back as on 29th August 2001, the department issued an order for appointment of petitioner for class-l V post but he did not join the same. This fact has also been noticed by this Court in its earlier judgment where this Court has observed: "the Counsel for the petitioner specifically stated that petitioner has not joined on Class IVth post nor is working. " 16. It is thus apparent from the record that the petitioner did not feel necessary to join the employment and get wages so as to earn his livelihood. He was not at all interested to join the offered post on his own volition and was ready to wait till he is given a post of his choice. In view of the fact that the compassionate appointment is not the scheme for providing status to the person, in my view the petitioner has erred in refusing to accept the class-IV post and insisting for his recruitment to the post of Constable (M ). The respondents have rightly considered the matter and in accordance with the rules. Admittedly, petitioner did not fulfill the qualification for the recruitment of constable and, therefore, he was rightly offered for the post of class IV but he failed to join the same. 17. Therefore, in the aforementioned circumstances, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;