Compassionate appointments are exceptions to normal recruitment rules, not vested rights, and must satisfy immediate needs without prolonged delays affecting eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Dilip Kumar Roy, who was working as Instructor, Printing Shop of HRH, the Prince of Wales Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jorhat and had died in harness on 05.02.2012. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible, had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 07.04.2012. However, the District Level Committee (DLC), Jorhat had rejected the application on 09.07.2012. Thereafter in the year 2015, the petitioner had again made a fresh application. Though the DLC had observed that the application was delayed, the matter was nonetheless forwarded to the State Level Committee (SLC). The SLC however vide the impugned decision dated 25.07.2017 had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of late submission. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. D. Das Barman, learned State Counsel and Shri D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and the same was also duly forwarded by the concerned authorities. He has also submitted that the petitioner was eligible for such appointment in all respects and therefore, a due consideration ought to have been made.

5. Per contra, Ms. Das Barman, learned State Counsel has also highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari , (2023) SCC Online SC 219 .

6. Shri Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel and has further submitted that more than 13 years have passed since the death of the government servant and therefore, the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground will not be applicable.

7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 05.02.2012 and the application appears to be made on 07.04.2012. Be that as it may, the DLC, Jorhat on the second occasion had forwarded the case of the petitioner though with an observation that there was late submission of the application. However, the SLC, vide the impugned decision dated 25.07.2017 had rejected his case on the same ground.

9. Though the petitioner had formulated certain grounds to assail the impugned decision of rejection, the aspect with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment cannot be overlooked. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment, is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of 13 years. In other words, even if the factor which was taken into consideration by the SLC for rejection, namely, late submissio