AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—Petitioner has prayed for direction on respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground against death of his father who died on 12.8.1996.
It is submitted that petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1839 of 2003 which was disposed of on 28.11.2008 directing the respondent to dispose of the pending representation of the petitioner; and that pursuant to which the representation has been rejected by the respondent; and that several dependents have been given appointment on the compassionate ground.
Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that such claim cannot be kept alive for indefinite period and in this case for more than fourteen years. After about seven years of death, petitioner filed the said writ petition in which the respondents were directed to disposed of the representation said to be pending with them. When the matter was examined, it was found that it is not possible to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner due to the ceiling limit of 5% and the time limit fixed for such appointment.
It is further submitted that now petitioner is aged about 44 years of age, and his family has received the retiral benefits and is getting pension.
No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed in this case in the month of July 2009.
I find force in the submission of Mr. Prabhash Kumar that such claim cannot be kept alive for fourteen years in this case. If petitioner''s claim was not considered after the death of his father in the year 1996, he could move a court of law within reasonable period. After seven years, he filed the said writ petition making a grievance that his representation has not been disposed of. Accordingly, respondents were directed to dispose of the representation. Respondents examined the matter and found that due to ceiling and time limit, it is not possible to consider the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner and his family survived all these fourteen years.
It has been held in (1994) 4 SCC 138 - Umesh Kumar Nagpal that the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future; and that such appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reads as follows:
We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, mere is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.