Concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

Refusal of compassionate appointment to the respondent/writ petitioner by the appellant, namely the Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai, in his proceedings dated 03.06.2005, has been drawn for our consideration, as an issue, in the above appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the writ petition.

2.1.The writ petitioners husband died on 05.10.1999 while he was discharging his duty as a Helper in the respondent Electricity Board. She applied for appointment on compassionate ground 15.11.2000, but the same was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. The hapless widow/the writ petitioner again applied for employment on compassionate ground, but her request was turned down once again on the same ground by the proceedings of the respondent dated 07.03.2002. The writ petitioner therefore passed 8th standard examination on private studies in December, 2004 and again applied for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondent, by his proceedings dated 03.06.2005, rejected the request of the writ petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her application within three years from the date of death of her husband.

2.2.Hence, the writ petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (MD) No.1335/2006 to quash the proceedings dated 03.06.2005 and for a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in a suitable post.

3.1.The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.08.2006, made in W.P. (MD) No.1335/2006, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking note of the earlier orders of this Court relating to the appointment on compassionate ground and the order the Apex Court in SLP No.6387 of 2005, dated 04.04.2005, confirming the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4008/2004, quashed the order of the respondent dated 30.06.2005 and directed the respondent to appoint the writ petitioner in a suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

3.2.After nearly one year from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent has chosen to file the present writ appeal without complying with the directions of the learned Single Judge.

4.The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent is that in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, the claim by a member of the deceased family cannot be considered de hors the provisions of the scheme in force governed by rules and regulations, particularly when an application is made after the period of three years, as in the instant case and, therefore, the respondent is justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. There cannot be any dispute as to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent that neither the respondent Board nor any authority, much less the State, can be compelled to fill-up any appointment on compassionate ground de hors the provisions of the scheme in force governed by Rules and Guidelines.

6. It is true that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointment on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointment – vide AIR 1994 SC 2148 – Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar (Mrs) and another; and that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit and the appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in-service leaving his family without any