K. Krishnamoorthi vs The Station Director, All India Radio and The Superintending Engineer, All India Radio

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is the eldest son of one N. Kumaravel, who unfortunately passed away on 22.11.2000 and he was working

as a Security Guard in the respondent establishment.

The petitioner, therefore, made an application dated 29.12.2000 seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. A letter was sent to the

Madras Office to inform the petitioner that his application was kept for the ""Group - C"" post along with similarly placed applicants and his serial

number was 11 and there was also no vacancy under 5% quota for compassionate appointment in the All India Radio, Tamil Nadu Zone and his

application will be considered in the line of seniority.

Thereafter, the petitioner sent reminders. On 11.3.2004, he was informed that his serial number was 5 in the waiting list. Finally, the respondents

informed the petitioner by a letter dated 22.9.2005 that his claim for appointment cannot be granted because as per the guidelines of Department

of Personnel and Training (DOPT), an application can be kept pending only for three years and thereafter, it will stand closed and there is no

further chance to be given considering that it is a request for compassionate appointment.

Mr. Pon. Muthuramalingam, Assistant Solicitor General of India has produced a communication dated 5.5.2003, which is an office

memorandum, issued by the Government of India, wherein it is clearly stated that petitioner''s claim will not be considered. The relevant passage in

paragraph 3 reads as follows:

The maximum time a person''s name can be kept under consideration for offering Compassionate Appointment will be three years, subject to

the condition that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the

second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the Applicant, his case will be finally closed and will

not be considered again.

The facts are not in dispute and the said DEOPT''s Memorandum is not under challenge. The averments made in the affidavit are that there is a

promise made to the petitioner all these years and suddenly to state that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment is not proper and that the

respondents should be directed to give posting to the petitioner by this Court.

It is held that the appointment on compassionate aground is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not a new source

of recruitment. The Court can only enforce the Rules, which are in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the

Government had framed the Rule including prescription of time limit, the Court out of any sympathy cannot expand the scope of the Rule.

On grounds of sympathy the Court cannot extend any benefit. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in State of Haryana and Another

Vs. Ankur Gupta, in para 6 held as follows:

As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi AIR 1996 SCW 3002 it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for

appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be

upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on

the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary

for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on

compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-Harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective

of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case it was held that the scheme regarding appointment on

compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on

constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar AIR 1994 SCW 1947 it was pointed out that the High courts and

Administrative Tribunals can not confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds

when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of

Haryana AIR 1994 SCW 2305 that as a rule, in public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications

and merit. 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 the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the

object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance

with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. No costs.