BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. - (1.) LET the affidavit filed in Court on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 8 be taken on record.
(2.) A rather unique issue, which falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether a prayer for compassionate appointment can be rejected by the concerned respondent authority, solely on the ground that the applicant happens to be a "married daughter". In the instant case, the petitioner, being a "married daughter", applied for compassionate appointment under the 'died -in -harness' category. Her prayer was rejected solely on the ground that she, being a "married daughter", was not eligible for compassionate appointment, as per memo no. 433/PN/O/III/2E -70/07 (Pt -1) dated 3rd February, 2009. This memo, which contains the relevant notification that seeks to exclude "married daughters" from being considered as eligible for compassionate appointment, is now sought to be challenged by the petitioner in the instant matter. Earlier, this Court had directed the State to file an affidavit stating therein specifically the rationale or logic behind exclusion of a "married daughter" from being considered eligible for compassionate appointment under the 'died -in -harness' category, notwithstanding the fact that financial hardship of the surviving family members being the most important criteria for such eligibility. The State was further directed to state in the affidavit as to whether a financially dependent daughter suddenly and automatically becomes financially independent, the moment she gets married and whether, likewise, such rationale or logic applies in case of a financially dependent son, upon his marriage.
(3.) AN affidavit -in -opposition has been filed on behalf of the concerned State respondents and it is quite disappointing to note - upon perusing the same - that this Court's specific query has remained unanswered. There cannot be any manner of doubt that an applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group/class of post as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground too, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a 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. As a rule, public 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, upon 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 crisis and not to confer a status on the family (see Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294).;