JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the State, challenging the Writ order dated 15.03.2023, passed in W.P. No. 28904 of 2016.

2. Respondent had filed the writ petition challenging the order of rejection declining his request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the respondent was serving as Village Assistant and died in harness on 13.11.1997. Admittedly, respondent was a minor at that point of time, aged about 7 years. The wife of the deceased employee filed an application seeking compassionate appointment on 11.05.1998.The said application was rejected on 05.06.1998 due to ban on compassionate appointments. On attaining majority and after a lapse of 17 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, respondent filed a fresh application seeking appointment on 05.10.2015. The said application was rejected on the ground that it was not submitted within the prescribed period of 3 years.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that second application seeking compassionate appointment is not entertainable under the Scheme. Respondent submitted his application after a lapse of 17 years from the date of death of his father. The application submitted by his mother was rejected, and she did not pursue the matter or show any interest in securing employment even after the lifting of the ban. That apart, on the date of death, respondent was a minor and therefore not eligible for appointment. Hence, the application submitted after a lapse of 17 years was rightly rejected by the competent authority.

4. Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and its terms and conditions cannot be expanded to ensure one appointment per family of the deceased employee. Long delay in filing an application itself is a valid ground for rejection. In view of the fact that a factual inference can be drawn that the penurious circumstances that arose on account of the sudden death of the employee, by efflux of time became vanished. The object of the scheme is not to provide one employment to the family of a Government employee. The scheme cannot be treated as a hereditary appointment. It is intended only for the deserving family and must be availed within a reasonable period, failing which the very purpose of the scheme would be defeated.

5. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. Lakhs and lakhs of meritorious youth of our nation are longing to seek public employment through open competitive examination process. All the public appointments are to be made under the constitutional scheme, subject to the terms and conditions so that compassionate appointment is provided only to the deserving families. Providing large scale compassionate appointments will result in administrative inefficiency and infringing the right of the eligible candidates who all are aspiring to secure public employment.

6. The principles on compassionate appointments are also summarised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director of Treasuries, Karnataka and Another Vs. Somyashree, 2021 INSC 472.

“(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.”

7. In view of the facts and circumstances and legal position as stated above, writ order impugned dated 15.03.2023 made in WP.No.28904 of 2016 is set aside. Accordingly, writ appeal stands