The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the state to consider cases on their own merits, provide transparent and non-discriminatory decisions, and adhere to the policy of relaxation issued by the government in compassionate appointment cases.

1. The facts culled from the instant petition are that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Shrimati Kamla Devi, Community Health Officer (CHO), Primary Health Centre, Lohai, Block Billawar, died in harness on the 27th day of January, 2010. She was survived by two sons and two daughters. At the time of the death of his mother, the petitioner was 39 years’ old and was holding a degree of Graduation to his credit. The father of the petitioner, Shri Jagdish Raj, had pre-deceased the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, applied before the Director, Health Services, Jammu/respondent No.3, under and in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, for compassionate appointment. The Block Medical Officer, Billawar, vide his communication dated March 3rd, 2010, recommended the case of the petitioner for necessary appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 to the Chief Medical Officer, Health and Family Welfare, Kathua, who, in turn, forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Director, Health Services, Jammu/ respondent No.3 vide his communication dated March 9th, 2010. The respondent No.3, it is stated, forwarded the proposal for the appointment of the petitioner to the Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Health Department, J&K Government/ respondent No.2, in terms of his communication dated March 22nd, 2010, with the recommendations that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment be considered in relaxation of upper age limit of 02 years, 01 month and 24 days. The respondent No.3 supported the said recommendations by all the details and justified the relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for recruitment in Government service. Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration before the respondent No.2, who, vide his communication dated October 21st, 2010, rejected the case of the petitioner. It is stated that the communication, impugned herein this petition and attached as Annexure-H to the writ petition, is illegal, arbitrary and per se discriminatory inasmuch the State has not applied its mind to the recommendations made by the Department of Health that justified the relaxation of upper age limit in the case of the petitioner, whereas, in similarly circumstanced cases, the upper age limit has been relaxed beyond the period of five years and the compassionate appointment has been offered to the dependents of the deceased Government employees. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 cannot adopt different yardsticks for different persons and the persons, who have no say in the corridors of power, cannot be treated differently.

2. The respondents have failed to file the Counter Affidavit. However, they have filed the objections at the pre-admission stage, wherein they have stated that the case of the petitioner was considered by the General Administration Department for the relaxation of his age and it was turned down on the ground that he did not meet the requirement of the age as provided in making appointments in the Government service. The respondents have proceeded to state that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 for the post of Junior Assistant. However, since his case required the relaxation of upper age limit by 02 years, 01 month and 24 days, therefore, the matter was taken up with the General Administration Department twice which was turned down on the plea that the same was not covered under the Relaxation Policy and, accordingly, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. It is stated that, even otherwise also, the primary and the basic purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to relieve the family of the deceased Government servant from financial destitution which is not the position in the instant case as the petitioner has neither pleaded the same in his petition nor has be placed, along with his application seeking compassionate appointment, anything on record which would suggest that his family