JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. Chakrabarty, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The instant application has been filed challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioner in terms with the Scheme/Policy of the Government for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. From the materials on record, it reveals that the father of the petitioner was working as a Constable 308 in the Office of the Commandant, Assam Special Reserve Force (ASRF), BM-II, Karagaon, Karbi Anglong. He died on 18.01.2013 while he was in service. Thereupon, the petitioner who has qualification upto Class-10 applied for appointment on compassionate grounds for any Grade-IV post in the department vide an application dated 04.03.2013. It further appears from the record that the petitioner waited for all these years and it was only on 02.04.2021 that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Civil Defence and Commandant for appointment on compassionate grounds. As the said representation having not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The law as regards appointment on compassionate ground is well settled.

The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Primary) and Others Vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa reported in (2021) SCCOnlineSC 1264 after taking into account various judgments rendered earlier by the Supreme Court observed that if compassionate appointment is one of the conditions of service and is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, the same would be treated as a vested right in law. It was further observed that it was not so inasmuch as appointment on compassionate ground is not automatic but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. It was emphasized in the said judgment that no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. In another judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30 had observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependants of the deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and 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 dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting the compassionate appointment as observed by the Supreme Court in the said judgment is enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and the object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. In this context, this Court would also referred to another judgment of Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and more particularly to paragraph Nos. 2 and 6 which are being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow:

“2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. 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 fo