- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that under the policy of the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to a regular job. However, she has only been granted a job on daily wages basis. We are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. In normal circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to any job unless regular vacancies were available and they were duly advertised in accordance with the rules. The Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138 has clearly laid down that appointment on compassionate grounds is not be granted as a matter of right. The object is not to give a member of the family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal are as under :- "As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to his general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood." In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. Consequently, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.;