JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to give appointment to this petitioner on compassionate ground who was daughter of late Bateshwar Kapri-deceased employee who died in harness on 06.11.2007.

3. Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the recommendation made by the Committee-Annexure-2, wherein it has been specifically stated that since the petitioner, who was married daughter, was looking after the deceased employee since long and since the deceased employee was not having any son; as such her case was recommended for appointment to the competent authority. However, the competent authority did not give appointment to this petitioner.

He further submits that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in applying for compassionate appointment; however, the respondents themselves had delayed the matter and finally held that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment being married daughter of the deceased employee.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it has been specifically stated that there is no law to appoint a married daughter on compassionate ground and only an unmarried daughter can be appointed on compassionate ground.

5. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the respondent-State draws attention of this Court towards the circular of the Government dealing with the appointment of a person on compassionate basis in which at column-1(Gha) it has been specifically stated that person who is entitled for compassionate appointment is widow/ son/ unmarried daughter/ widow of deceased son.

He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of N.C. Santhosh V. State of Karnataka reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment is an exception in general rule and as such the provisions of law is to be adhered in true letter and spirit.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed in the respective affidavits, it appears that name of the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment by holding that the deceased employee was not having any son and the petitioner being married daughter was looking after her father since long as such her case was recommended to be considered for compassionate appointment. However, as per notification dated 05.10.1991 which relates to give appointment to the legal heirs on compassionate ground; at paragraph-1 (Gha) it has been specifically stated that the entitled person for compassionate appointment would be widow/son/unmarried daughter/widow of deceased son and the record transpires that the respondent authorities has rejected the claim of the petitioner relying upon this circular.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh V. State of Karnataka (supra) has held at paragraph nos. 18 & 19 as under:-

“18. In the most recent judgment in State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the Bench, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J. reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The dependants of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the norms laid down by the State’s policy.

19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a governm