1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-12), by which the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that another son of the deceased employee is already in Government service, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that his mother was working as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School and died in harness on 11.5.2013, therefore, the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s brother Vikram Singh Parmar had also given the affidavit that he was working as Sainik in SAF and is in Government service but is living separately with his wife and has no connection with the other members of the family. By the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner’s brother is living separately and has no connection with the other family members of the deceased employee, therefore, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on that ground. In this regard he has placed reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court dated 15.1.2014 in Writ Petition No.12017/2012 and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Prakash Parmar v. Government of M.P., reported in 2012 MPLJ (4) 539. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since one of the family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service, therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment in terms of the Circular dated 18.8.2008 and Clause 4.1 of the said circular in clear terms provides that if any of the eligible family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service or service of the Corporation, Board, Parishad, Commission etc., then the other member-applicant will be ineligible for compassionate appointment.

5. The aforesaid clause 4.1 of the circular dated 18.8.2008 has already been considered by the Division Bench in the matter of Prajesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2016(2) JLJ 170=(2016)3 MPLJ 88, while taking the view that if one of the family member eligible for compassionate appointment is in the employment in Government service or Corporation, Board etc., then any other member of the family though eligible will not be entitled for compassionate appointment. The Division Bench after examining the entire matter in detail has held as under :-

“26. Therefore, merely because a member of the family of Government servant, who is in the employment in Government service, or corporation, board, council, commission etc., has started residing separately, he cannot be excluded from the class under Clause 4.1 of the Policy.

27. There are other reasons why we are of the opinion that the family member in employment but living separately has to be treated as a member of family of deceased Government servant.

28. Trite it is that appointment to public service is to be on merit in accordance with the rules furthering the principle enunciated in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Exception, however, has been carved out in favour of dependents of employees who die in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. For that, State Government has evolved a policy for appointment on compassionate ground with an object to provide immediate relief to such bereaved family.

29. While dwelling upon this aspect, it has been held by the Supreme Court in