JUDGMENT T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioner is the son of one P. O. Chacko, who was a driver in the respondent Corporation. Chacko died on 18-2-1986 after serving the Corporation as a driver for more than twenty years. There was a suit among the heirs, of Chacko namely O. S. No. 182 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff's Court Kanjirappally in which a decree was passed on 29-9-1987 declaring the petitioner as the person entitled to claim compassionate appointment in the Corporation under the dying in harness scheme. Petitioner applied accordingly for appointment in the respondent Corporation pursuant to which he was called for an interview in the year 1988, and being found fit, included in the select list for appointment under the dying in harness scheme. He is serial No. 2 in the list of peons selected for appointment under the scheme. 2. Since the appointment was not forthcoming despite his inclusion in the list, the petitioner made request for immediate appointment to which he received a reply Ext. P4 dated 18-11-1991, stating that he is serial No. 2 in the list of peons selected under the scheme and that he will be appointed in his turn as and when a vacancy of peon arises in the Corporation. 3. The petitioner is disappointed with the reply Ext. P4 and prays for immediate appointment with retrospective effect in the respondent Corporation. He also seeks payment of all monetary benefits arising out of retrospective notional appointment. 4. There is a further prayer to create a supernumerary post with retrospective effect to accommodate him in case there is no vacancy at present. 5. The respondent has filed a counter statement in which, while they stand by their offer to appoint the petitioner, they plead their difficulties besides financial constraints and governmental directions as standing in the way of the appointment. First it is pointed out that the corporation is overstaffed with the bus staff ratio standing at 1:11.5 while it should be around 1:7.5. Government itself has taken note of this overstaffing and has issued directions under S.34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act directing that no appointment shall be made in the Corporation, that loss should be progressively reduced and the rate of return of 3% prescribed by the Finance Commission should be reached not later than 1989-90. Government itself has taken note of this overstaffing and has issued directions under S.34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act directing that no appointment shall be made in the Corporation, that loss should be progressively reduced and the rate of return of 3% prescribed by the Finance Commission should be reached not later than 1989-90. Accordingly the Corporation has stopped all fresh appointments including appointments under the dying in harness scheme. 6. It is also pointed out that the Public Service Commission had prepared an advice list of peons on 9-4-1984 out of which only a few have been appointed till this date. Many of those included in the advice list are waiting for their turn for appointment as peons in the Corporation. It is in these circumstances that the Corporation pleads, as stated above, inability, financial problems and governmental directions as standing in the way of the petitioner being appointed. The Corporation points out inter alia that at a matter of fact they are having a select list of twenty five candidates to be appointed as peons in the dying in harness scheme, but none could be appointed in the above circumstances. 7. There is no doubt that the petitioner is one of those included in the list for appointment of peons prepared under the dying In harness scheme There are twenty five person in that list. The dispute arises only because of the petitioner's claim for immediate appointment and that too with retrospective effect. Petitioner refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sushama Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , where the court stated that if there is no suitable post for appointment, a supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. This was followed by this court In Brijithamma v. State of Kerala 1990 (1) KLT 399 , where again this court emphasised the need for immediate employment of the dependents of those persons dying in harness. 8. There can be no doubt that the dependents of those who die while in office should find accommodation in suitable jobs with all reasonable despatch. It is also true that they deserve the utmost sympathy in the matter of appointment. But then any such appointment should also be consistent with public interest. 8. There can be no doubt that the dependents of those who die while in office should find accommodation in suitable jobs with all reasonable despatch. It is also true that they deserve the utmost sympathy in the matter of appointment. But then any such appointment should also be consistent with public interest. The latter is paramount In any state action and cannot be sacrificed in favour of the interest of an Individual, whatever be the sympathy that one should evoke towards that Individual. Public interest is supreme and should inform every aspect of state action. Salus Populiest suprema lex - Regard for the public welfare is the highest law (Broom's Legal Maxims, page 1). Failure to observe this principle may result in detriment (may be unintended) and adverse reaction in other areas, despite the small benefit that may accrue by a particular state action. I am not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention that appointment under the dying in harness scheme should override every other consideration and that such an appointment should be made irrespective of financial constraints or other relevant considerations. 9. The fact that the Corporation is overstaffed cannot be denied. As early as in 1986 government has given the direction to stop further appointments having regard to the bus staff ratio in the Corporation standing at 1:11.5 as against the optimum of 1:7.5. The staff strength has necessarily got to reduced. The very constitution of the Corporation is for the benefit of all sections of the population including the poorest of the poor. It is intended to provide a cheap mode of transport, without being related to mere profit motive.The consequence of over staffing of the Corporation will primarily hit the common man who has to bear the burden of the additional overheads and expenses consequent on it. For ought we know, a common traveller in the Corporation bus may be far worse than the petitioner, who comes forward seeking an employment. If is not as if the petitioner is the sole person claiming benefits under the dying in harness scheme. There may be umpteen others as well. In fact even the select list of peons prepared under the dying in harness scheme has twenty five person Included in it in the year 1988, with likelihood of subsequent additions. What applies to the petitioner must equally apply to the other twenty four as well. There may be umpteen others as well. In fact even the select list of peons prepared under the dying in harness scheme has twenty five person Included in it in the year 1988, with likelihood of subsequent additions. What applies to the petitioner must equally apply to the other twenty four as well. If the petitioner is directed to be appointed, equally the other twenty four or more can also seek such directions and get employment. The immediate consequence will be to overload the respondent Corporation with a heavy financial burden. It must be noted that the petitioner is being appointed as a peon, while the job which has been left vacant is that of a driver. The petitioner cannot therefore replace the deceased person even assuming that the post of driver was going to be filled up. The larger pubic interest is therefore against overloading the Corporation with employees they do not require. In fact, this has been noted by the government when they issued the direction under S.34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. The excess appointments will necessarily lead to financial constraints and add to the loss of the corporation, which will have to be made up by the travelling public at large. 10. It is not as if by appointing one Individual or a few Individuals under the dying in harness scheme, misery is going to be alleviated. It is a fact which can be taken note of that a public enterprise like the Corporation is intended to subserve the interests of the common man among whom many may be living below the poverty line. They will be the ones hit by any direction for appointment under the dying in harness scheme when there is no scope for such appointment. 11. The decisions in Sushama Gosain and in Brijithamma have to be confined to the facts of those cases. I do not think they have intended to lay down a general principle that irrespective of considerations of public interest and irrespective of any other relevant considerations, financial or otherwise, every applicant under the dying in harness scheme should forthwith be provided with a supernumerary post even if there is no vacancy. 12. I am not Inclined to read those decisions as laying down any such general proposition. 12. I am not Inclined to read those decisions as laying down any such general proposition. The petitioner is ranked serial No. 2 in the list of persons to be appointed as peons under the dying in harness scheme. I am sure the respondent will take effective measures to appoint the petitioner as and when his turn comes. The tall claim made by the petitioner that he should be appointed by creating a supernumerary post with retrospective effect and given all the monetary benefits is totally unsustainable and I unsupported by any provision of law. Any appointment of the petitioner as and when made can only be prospective and never retrospective. The petitioner is not therefore entitled to any relief. The original petition is accordingly dismissed.