Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis due to the death of the sole breadwinner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Devesh Misra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.

Facts

2. This Special Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WRIT -A No. -9064 of 2019 (Iqbal Khan Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others).

3. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.7.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced below :-

“Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, consequent upon death of his father. An order was passed on 14.5.2015, declining appointment on the post of Pharmacist and offering him appointment on the post of Lab Attendant or any other post for which petitioner possess requisite qualification. Pursuant to this direction, petitioner applied for the post of Lab Attendant and has been offered appointment also. Petitioner has been working since July, 2015. He has now approached this Court with the grievance that qualification for the post of Pharmacist had been amended and that amended rule had not been taken note of as per which he is eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist.

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, appointment on the post of Pharmacist is to be made through U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission and, therefore, in view of the provision contained in Rule 5 read with rule 3 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1974'), no compassionate appointment can be granted on such post. It is stated that the vacancies have otherwise been notified on the post of Pharmacist to the Selection Commission.

Rules of 1974 clearly provides that appointment can be offered only on a post for which recruitment is not required to be undertaken by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission. Since post of Pharmacist is earmarked to the Commission for recruitment, the petitioner's claim for compassionate on it cannot be considered. The petitioner has been appointed on the post of Lab Attendant in July, 2015, and therefore, he has otherwise acquiesced to his appointment on the said post. There is no challenge laid to the order declining petitioner's claim on the post of Pharmacist. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.”

4. It is admitted to the petitioner that compassionate appointment was offered to him on 14.05.2019 and he accepted the offer and joined on the post of Lab Attendant. After about four years he filed the aforesaid writ petition claiming that he has the qualification for the post of Pharmacist and, therefore, a mandamus may be issued to the respondents to give appointment/absorb the petitioner on the post of Pharmacist in place of the post of Lab Attendant considering his qualification.

5. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on two grounds firstly the appointment on the post of Pharmacist is to be made through U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission which has been notified by the Commission for selection and secondly, the petitioner has otherwise acquiesced to his appointment on the post of Lab Attendant.

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

Submissions

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1974') the appointment has to be given by the employer in accordance with the qualification of the candidate applying for compassionate appointment under Rules 1974. He further submits that even if the petitioner has accepted the appointment on the post of Lab Attendant under the Rules 1974 yet his claim for the post of Pharmacis