Mranal Bhatia vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking direction to the respondents to give him appointment on compassionate basis on post of Commercial Assistant(Second) with effect from 23.04.2021 with all consequential benefits.

Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner’s father, who was working as a Meter Inspector (II) with the respondent department, passed away on 06.10.2020 while still in service. As a result, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the post of L.D.C., as per his educational qualifications. In response to the petitioner’s letter dated 08.03.2021, the petitioner was informed on 21.06.2021 that, as per his educational qualifications and the JVVNL Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2016, he was not eligible for the post of L.D.C.

2.1. By order dated 23.04.2021, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant (Second). Pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2021, the petitioner joined his duties on 07.05.2021. However, individuals with lower qualifications than the petitioner were appointed to the higher post of Commercial Assistant (Second). Hence, the present petition.

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the case pleaded in affirmation, along with the relevant documents annexed, it emerges that the petitioner, vide an order dated 23.04.2021, was appointed to the post of Assistant (Second). The petitioner now challenges the respondents' decision to assign him a lower cadre position, despite having higher educational qualification.

The settled principle of law on the question, is that once a compassionate appointment is given and accepted, the right to such appointment, stands exhausted. Compassionate appointment is not to be construed, in any manner, as reservation to seek appointments by creating vertical reservation through a special category of wards of deceased employees who die in harness. The nobility and benevolence of compassionate policies is to ameliorate immediate penury with which the family is visited with and provide immediate succor to the bereaved family from financial calamity.

Furthermore, I am unable to persuade myself with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on a higher post, he should be so appointed by issuance of a writ of mandamus, when the basis of such appointment is compassion.

In the premise, I am of the opinion that compassionate appointments are based on humanitarian considerations and for giving immediate employment to the bereaved family on the death of sole breadwinner. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing appointment of the petitioner on a higher post, when hundreds of eligible candidates for that post are waiting for their turn. Especially, when the petitioner has already been granted preferential treatment and given appointment on the post of Assistant (second). Furthermore, the said post was given to the petitioner without even requiring him or exposing him to competition with several other candidates.

In this context, reference may also be had to an Apex Court judgment rendered in State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh (AIR online 1994 SC 367), wherein the Apex Court categorically held that once the appointment on the post of LDC, given to Umrao Singh in that case, was accepted by him, his right to be considered for appointment, on compassionate ground, stood extinguished and no consideration on compassionate ground would further arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion".

Being so, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.