ORDER

1. The case of the writ petitioner is that his father, who was working as an Assistant Veterinary Officer died in harness on 8.12.2000. The petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment. He was granted a contractual appointment vide order dated 26.6.2002 as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varga-II. The appointment was for a period of three years. Thereafter, by the order dated 26.11.2002, merely after a period of five months, the appointment was cancelled on the ground that the said post was not available. Thereafter, he made a number of representations to the respondents but nothing came of it. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by the writ petitioner.

2. The primary plea of the appellant is that he was entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. The same has not been granted to him. On the contrary, he was appointed on contract basis. Even that has been cancelled. Hence, he pleads that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice by the respondents. That he has suffered immensely because of wrongful acts of the respondents.

3. A return on behalf of the respondents was filed. Learned counsel firstly contended that the impugned order was passed in the year 2002 and the petition was filed in the year 2014. Hence, it has to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

4. That since as on the date of death of the petitioner's father, no post was vacant in the regular establishment, he was granted the appointment on contract basis. Thereafter, it was cancelled, since no such post was vacant. After cancellation, the petitioner made a representation to the Collector for reconsideration of his case for compassionate appointment. The same was forwarded to the DEO and thereafter, to the Joint Director Veterinary Sciences. Thereafter, the Director closed the matter of the petitioner that as per Clause-4.6 of the Policy dated 22.1.2007, the cases which have been rejected/decided prior to 1.1.2007 would not be reviewed.

5. That since the claim of the petitioner was already finalized in the year 2007 and was unchallenged by the petitioner, after a gap of seven years the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment. Hence, while supporting the impugned order, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. Learned Government Advocate has filed an additional affidavit in this proceeding. He has stated that presently there are three posts which are vacant in general category of employees in the Veterinary Services Department Rewa Division. The further contention of the learned Government Advocate is to the effect that even though the petitioner was entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, since there were no posts available, the contractual appointment was granted. We asked him to justify as to how a contractual appointment can be granted vis-a-vis a regular appointment on compassionate ground. He places reliance on the policy dated 1.5.2000 as produced vide Annexure-AR/2 with specific reference to Clauses 4, 5 and 6.

7. We have heard learned counsels.

8. We are of the view that the plea of the State cannot be accepted. An appointment on compassionate grounds is an appointment to a regular post. Therefore, all consequences will follow. An appointment based on contract would entail the consequences that arise out of a contractual appointment. The rules do not permit substitution of an appointment on compassionate grounds through contractual appointment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on contractual ground is illegal. The respondents had no authority to do so. The further contention that as on that day the posts were not available may be a matter of fact to be ascertained. Even assuming the posts were not available that does not give a right to the respondents to convert an appointment on compassionate grounds on contractual basis. Hence, we do not find any ground in the sa