Honble TIBREWAL, J.–A short question that arises for consideration in this petition is; Whether the petitioner can lay a further claim for getting appointment as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) or Nakedar, once he had accepted appointment as a Sub Nakedar on compassionate ground under the Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be refe-rred to as the Rules)?

(2). In short, facts of the case are that petitioners father Shri Ram Swaroop Pandey had died on 15.7.78 while in service as Nakedar in Municipal Council, Alwar. On an application made under Rule 5, petitioner was given appointment on the post of Sub- Nakedar in the pay scale applicable to the said post vide order dated,June 10, 1994 (Annex.1), issued by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Alwar. The petitioner accepted appointment and joined the post. Thereafter, on January 3, 1995, he moved an application to the Administrator, Municipal Council, Alwar, to provide him appointment on the post of L.D.C. or Nakedar as his father was working as Nakedar at the time of his death. He, then, gave a notice for demand of justicethrough his Advocate, Shri M.C. Sharma, and when nothing was done, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him as LDC/or Nakedar with all consequential benefits.

(3). The contention of the learned counsel is that when appointment was given to the petitioner as Sub Nakedar, no post of Nakedar was lying vacant andnow on availability of the post he is entitled to get appointment as Nakedar. According to the Counsel, the petitioner fulfills educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Nakedar and his right to get appointment in the said post cannot be denied for non- availability of a vacancy at the time when appointment was given to him on the post of Sub-Nakedar. Learned counsel strongly relied uponRule-5 which provides to give a suitable employment in Government service to a member of the family of the deceased Government servant.

(4). In my view, the above contentions have no merit. This court and the Apex Court of the country have consistently observed in various decisions that the object or granting employment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tideover the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner of the family. The object is not to give a member of the family a post, muich less a post for the post held by the deceased. It has been further laid down the mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Further the applicant has no right to any particular post of his choice, he can only claim to be considered forthe post available at the relevant time.

(5). In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others (1), the matter has been examined by the Apex Court and it has been hld that normal rule of appointment in the public services should be on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, one of its exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and living his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases out of pure humanitarian consideration and 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 has been madein the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. It has been observed thus:-

``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. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document