1. Petitioner's father was substantively holding the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Public Works (R&B) Department. It is pleaded in the writ petition that on 23.04.2008, father of petitioner has expired while in service. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that when father of the petitioner expired; all the three children were school going students. The petitioner passed his 10+2 examination in the year 2006, Graduation in 2007 and Post Graduation in 2009. Respondents considered his claim for being appointed on compassionate ground in accordance with the mandate of Rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/460]. The consideration resulted in issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner and petitioner was appointed against Class-IV post Orderly. This petition is filed with the prayer that at the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, petitioner had passed three years Degree general course from University of Jammu and has also passed Master Degree Programme in Sociology. Thus, his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was to be considered against a vacancy in Non-Gazetted service, in view of the mandate contained in the Rule 3 of J&K (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994.

2. On notice issued, respondents have filed objections.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds was considered on the basis of his academic qualification which he possessed in the year 2009. Learned counsel further submits that consideration accorded by the respondents is illegal, inasmuch as, his claim, at the time of consideration accorded by the respondents was to be made on the basis of Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules 1994, inasmuch as, respondents were statutorily required to consider the petitioner's appointment in the Non-Gazetted services.

5. Mr. Ravinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that compassionate appointment is not provided to a family member, as a matter of right. Learned counsel submitted that a family member is appointed with the sole purpose of providing sustenance to the family. Leaned counsel submitted that it is discretion of the Government to appoint a person on compassionate grounds and is also its direction to appoint him on a class IV post. Learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner has joined, so is prevented from staking claim for being appointed on higher post.

6. By issuance of appointment order, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been accepted by the respondents. The only issue which requires to be settled is as to on which post petitioner could be appointed. The claim of the petitioner is that he being possessed of Post Graduation Academic qualification, was to be considered by the respondents for being appointed against higher post of non-gazetted service, whereas the claim of respondents that he has been rightly appointed on Class IV post.

7. The appointment on compassionate ground is not usual mode of recruitment on a public post. The post which is available with the Government is a public property and appointments are to be made in accordance with the mandate contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The State, in view of the Scheme contained in our Constitution, is a welfare State. The State, in order to effectuate intendment under lying the Constitution, took a policy decision to provide sustenance to such families which are denuded of the source of sustenance so as to ensure that such families do not suffer from vagaries of life and such families, in order to sustain themselves, do not commit any unethical, immoral or illegal act. The policy decision, so taken by the State Government, is reflected in the rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document