Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and must adhere to the norms laid down by the State's policy, considering the relevant scheme prevalent on the date of the employee's demise.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash part of Memo No. 22 mu. estb. dated 04.10.2013, whereby the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been dismissed. Further the petitioner has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of her father, Yamuna Ram.

3. Yamuna Ram was a Revenue Karamchari in Khasmahal Office of Palamau District. He died in harness on 02.07.2012. He died leaving behind his widow, namely, Kanti Devi and this petitioner, who is the daughter. Admittedly, this petitioner is married to one Navin Kumar Kashyap. This petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not the dependent as she is married daughter and there is a difference in address and she does not come within the purview of dependent as per the resolution of the Government, which governs grant of compassionate appointment.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter, though married, was dependent on the father, who was the deceased employee, thus, she cannot be deprived of getting compassionate appointment when the mother has nominated her to get appointment.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that admittedly the petitioner is a married daughter. Impugned order suggests that the married daughter cannot be said to be dependent in terms of the resolution of the Government. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a rule, but is an exception. A candidate has got no right to be appointed on compassionate ground as the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli), Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 at paragraph 6 thereof has held as under:

“6. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.”

6. The approach of compassionate appointment has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6.1 of the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 after taking note of the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is necessary to quote paragraph 6.1, which reads as under:

6.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, in Paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:

21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: [Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, SCC pp. 139-140, Para 2]

2........As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Gove