Compassionate appointments must comply strictly with applicable rules, and delays in application negate claims for such appointments, emphasizing they are exceptions, not rights.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by Shri S.M.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and the rejoinder affidavit filed by Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner are taken in the record.

2. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to regular appointment and salary from the date of his appointment as a contractual employee on 25.08.2014.

3. Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Shri Vagish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on 25.08.2014 as a contractual employee. In fact his appointment was made under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974”). Hence he is entitled to regular appointment and salary from the aforesaid date of his appointment.

4. Per contra, Shri S.M.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was a delay of more than five years on part of the petitioner in making an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The delay has not been condoned by the competent authority. The appointment of the petitioner is not made under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The petitioner cannot be granted the relief claimed by him.

5. Heard Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Shri Vagish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The admitted facts of the case are these. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 10.02.2006. The petitioner turned 18 in the year 2013. He filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on 05.07.2013. The appointments on compassionate ground in the respondent-corporation are made under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as made applicable to the respondent-corporation. Admittedly, the said application was filed more than five years after the death of the father. The aforesaid delay of more than five years has not been condoned by the competent authority in the instant case as contemplated in the Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974. The petitioner was appointed as a contractual employee in the respondent-corporation on25.08.2014.

7. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the aforesaid contractual appointment of the petitioner was made under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and consequently the petitioner is liable to be treated as a permanent employee with effect from the date of his appointment as a contractual employee on 25.08.2014?

8. Appointments to public posts, government services and to various instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are governed and regulated by comprehensive provisions contained in the Constitution. The constitutional scheme envisages an open recruitment and a transparent procedure which enables maximum participation from all the eligible segments of the citizenry at large. The final appointments are made after a fair selection based on competitive merit. While making the said appointments the reservat