ORDER :

Vishal Dhagat, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding respondents to comply with order dated 17.03.2023 and grant appointment to petitioner on post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator on compassionate basis.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was having requisite qualification on date when his application was under consideration for being appointed to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator. However, Clerk played a mischief and wrongly informed petitioner that there is no vacant position. Due to said wrong information, petitioner accepted the post of Chowkidar-cum- Helper. It is submitted that had correct information been given to petitioner, petitioner may not have exercised his option. It is also submitted that other similarly situated candidates were given appointment on post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator. Petitioner has been discriminated and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel appearing for petitioner made a prayer to issue writ of mandamus.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer. It is submitted that petitioner does not have any right to the post. Appointment on compassionate basis is granted to help a candidate to tide over financial crisis. As a right, a candidate cannot ask for being appointed to a particular post. It is further submitted that petitioner has accepted appointment in year 2020 without any grudge. Once he accepts appointment, right of petitioner for further consideration to another post is over. Same request cannot be considered after appointment is given to petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner further submitted that order passed by appellate authority dated 17.03.2023 is without jurisdiction. There is no statutory right of appeal. Said order could not be relied upon.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has argued that petitioner is not making any claim for complying order dated 17.03.2023, however, petitioner had made pleadings in writ petition that order dated 17.03.2023 is to be complied with. Due to aforesaid wrong assertion before this Court, cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) is imposed upon counsel for petitioner, to be paid to Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur within a period of 15 days.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Surya Kant Kadam vs State of Karnataka and others , reported in (2002) 9 SCC 445. In said case, it was found that petitioner was having qualification to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Excise but has been appointed as Second Division Assistant Clerk. In said case also, mischief was played against petitioner therein by Clerk. In view of same, Apex Court held that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, relief was granted in favour of petitioner therein.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has relied upon judgment passed by Apex Court in case of The Director of Town Panchayat and others vs M. Jayabal and another , reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1203. In said case, Apex Court has held as under :

"9. The law on the issue is well-settled. The issue as to whether a second option can be exercised by the dependent family member of the deceased employee, once option for compassionate appointment has already been exercised and the dependent family member of the deceased joined on the post to which appointment was given, was considered by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560. In this case, the deceased was working as Sub-Inspector, CID. On account of his death during service, application for appointment on compassionate basis was made. The dependant was offered appointment on the post of L.D.C. The same was accepted and the in