Compassionate appointments cannot be strictly upheld on the basis of constitutional articles and can only be considered when a scheme for such appointments is in force.

BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.

Re: CAN No. 10082 of 2017

1. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/ appellant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN No. 10082 of 2017, is accordingly allowed.

MAT No. 1627 of 2017 with CAN No. 9388 of 2017

2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th June, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26418 (W) of 2014, Sri Bimal Munda vs. State of West Bengal and Others.

4. The appellants before us are the State and its other authorities.

5. Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge - on a writ petition taken out by Bimal Munda - has issued a mandatory direction for his appointment on compassionate ground. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is setout in its entirety herein-below:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I direct the Joint Secretary to the Government of west Bengal, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development to immediately appoint the petitioner in a suitable post, irrespective of any waiting list as per the recommendation of the Joint director of Panchayats and Rural Development, West Bengal dated 10th May, 2012 within three months of communication of this order.

I have ordered appointment and not consideration because this recommendation was made in 2011. The Joint Secretary had enough time to reject the application which he has not done so. I have also ordered appointment irrespective of any waiting list because when this recommendation is pending for about four years, there is no question of waiting further.

All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

The writ application is thus disposed of.”

6. It is well settled 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. In this context, one may take notice of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. Shashank Goswami and Another, AIR 2012 SC 2294.

7. In Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2008) 11 SCC 384, the Supreme Court, while examining the scope of employment on compassionate ground, took into consideration a scheme where a dependant of an employee was considered ineligible for the post in a case where the family received terminal/retiral benefits above the ceiling limit. This decision of the Supreme Court was referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in its latter decision rendered in Shas