S.N.Jha, J.

1. Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides for equality of opportunity for all citizensin matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them except in cases falling in exceptions enumerated under Clauses (3) and (5) of the Article. Any preferential right to appointment to the person or class of persons born to particular parents would, thus strictly speaking, be contrary to the Constitutional mandate of Article 16. Appointment of dependent member of Government servants dying in harness on compassionate ground has nevertheless been upheld by this Court in Bijoy Kumar Singh V/s. The State of Bihar 1991 (1) PLJR 316 stating:

"The impugned circular, however, is not a bald preference to the dependents of employees of the State Government. It has not gone to the descent of the person preferred for appointment. It has taken notice of a sudden demise resulting in cessation of source which earned bread for them, It has emphasised that those who fall in an income group below Rs. 6,000.00 per year and lost their bread earner should be preferred. It is not a general concession to all the dependents of the deceased employees. It is confined to the selection to one to compensate the loss by giving employment to him. If one bread earner is there, another is not allowed to enter in the preference. The circular is, thus, one which has conferred a preferential right to appointment to the dependents of a deceased employee who died in harness by identifying the economic backwardness and also the loss which unless compensated shall force the family to go further down."

The Supreme Court also in Yogendra Prasad Singh V/s. Union of India (1987-I-LLJ-337), while holding that sons or near relatives of the police officers either in service or retired are not entitled to any preference in appointment merely because they happen to be children or wards or other relatives of such police officers, observed that "it may be permissible to appoint a person who is son of the police officer who dies in service or is incapacitated rendering the service in the police department."

2. Having regard to the nature of appointment and the object underlying it, there cannot be any doubt that compassionate appointment is to be made at the earliest otherwise not only the object would be frustrated but the very reason or the basis on which such appointment has been upheld will itself disappear exposing the same to challenge as being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. It would be apt in this connection to quote the observations of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. V/s. Union of India (1990-I-LLJ-169) as hereunder:

"It must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for 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 beard earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such cause pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."

3. In the instant writ petitions, the Government servants concerned died in harness on different dates in 1987, 1988 and 1992. The claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has, however, been kept in abeyance on the ground of non-availability of post. The observations of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain (supra) regarding creation of supernumerary post to accommodate the applicant have since been somewhat diluted in the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, not possible to issue any such direction in favour of the petitioners.

4. It has been brought to our notice that the reason for non- appointment na