AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The appellant/petitioner's father was a time keeper, when he died in harness on 8.4.1997. The petitioner was offered appointment, on which, he has
joined as Chowkidar in the same department of Public Works. In the writ petition before the Single Bench, the petitioner claimed that he having
passed XII standard examination, was eligible for appointment on a Class III post, therefore, the authorities should have considered his case for
compassionate appointment on a Class-III post and refusal to make such appointment on the ground that he is not qualified and eligible, is illegal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are in full agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner
cannot bargain that he has to be appointed on a particular post when such appointment is not on merit but under a policy of compassionate
appointment.
It is the settled law that the compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is offered to the dependent of the deceased Government
Servant to provide succor to the family, who have suffered financial hardship due to demise of the sole bread winner of the family.
It is also the trite law that an applicant/candidate is not entitled to a higher post of his choice merely because he fulfills the requisite eligibility
qualifications (State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 661).
There cannot be any claim for compassionate appointment to a particular post.
There is no substance in the writ appeal, it fails and is hereby dismissed.