ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri M. M. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition claiming compassionate appointment. The petitioner has also challenged Clause 4.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018 as well as Clause 4.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013. 3. The petitioner’s contention is that petitioner’s father was serving on the post of Line Attendant (Class – IV) in the services of Madhya Pradesh Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and he expired on 2-11-2013. 4. The petitioner, after death of his father, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 9-10-2015. The family included petitioner’s mother, two brothers and one sister. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a reminder on 9-3-2016. On 6-9-2018, the petitioner was directed by the respondent No. 3/The Manager (Human Resource) to submit documents in respect of requisite qualifications for the post of Line Attendant up to 20-12-2018. 5. The petitioner submitted a reply on 15-11-2018 to the respondents stating that the petitioner is holding VIII Standard qualification, he does not want the post of Line Attendant for which higher qualifications are prescribed and he should be appointed on any Class IV post. The petitioner’s contention is that the respondents have found him fit for the post of Line Attendant, however, as he does not have technical qualification for the post of Line Attendant, he is not being granted appointment, and therefore, the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013 and 2018 framed by the respondents is discriminatory, unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 6. The petitioner has also raised a ground that the policies relating to grant of compassionate appointment are violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. It has also been argued that the scheme of compassionate appointment has been framed only with an object to provide financial assistance to the family on account of death of sole breadwinner and by identifying technical posts only for grant of compassionate appointment, no purpose is going to be served as majority of the dependents do not have technical qualifications. 8. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondents is that they have framed a policy for grant of compassionate appointment and the case of the petitioner was considered for grant of compassionate appointment. 8. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondents is that they have framed a policy for grant of compassionate appointment and the case of the petitioner was considered for grant of compassionate appointment. He was found fit for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Testing Assistant as under the policy, the respondents have identified certain posts for grant of compassionate appointment. Annexure-R/1 has been filed and the same provides that the posts identified for the purpose are of Assistant, Grade – III, Junior Stenographer, Law Assistant, Testing Assistant and Line Attendant. In respect of most of the posts, technical qualifications are required including B.E., I.T.I. etc. 9. The petitioner’s father was Class IV employee and the petitioner is holding VIII Standard qualification, which is minimum qualification required for a Class IV post like peon etc. 10. The respondents, in 62nd meeting of the Board, have modified the Compassionate Appointment Policy by taking a policy decision and a circular has been issued on 17-9-2015 identifying only technical post for grant of compassionate appointment, meaning thereby, large number of dependents have already been eliminated by the respondents by framing such a policy. Confining the grant of compassionate appointment only to technical post, cannot be done. It is certainly arbitrary. 11. The aim and object for grant of compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family of the deceased Government Servant is granted some financial assistance on account of death of the sole breadwinner. Large number of dependents in most of cases are holding qualifications for Class IV post like Peon, Watchman, Waterman etc. etc., and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, Clause 4.1, which provides appointment only on technical post by way of compassionate appointment, is certainly arbitrary and is against the very scheme of grant of compassionate appointment. 12. The respondents have placed reliance upon judgments delivered in the cases of P. M. Hatha and another vs. State of Kerela and others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 541 and Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Government of NCT, Delhi and others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 and their contention is that unless and until an incumbent possess the qualification for the post, he is not entitled for appointment. 13. 13. The respondents have stated that the petitioner does not have the qualification for the post of Testing Assistant, and therefore, he cannot be appointed in light of the aforesaid judgments. 14. It is true that the petitioner does not have the qualification for the post of Testing Assistant but the action of the respondents in reserving the post of Testing Assistant for grant of compassionate appointment itself is arbitrary. The respondents should have kept all Class IV posts for grant of compassionate appointment and the candidates, who are not having technical qualification, can very well be appointed on those posts. The petitioner does not want a higher post, he wants a Class IV post even a post of peon, and therefore, Clause 4.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018 is declared to be an arbitrary clause. 15. The respondent have also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Ravi Talimpuri vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 7713/2016 decided on 10-7-2018 and their contention is that the Compassionate Appointment Policy framed by them has been upheld by this Court. 16. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and the issue regarding reservation of technical post exclusively for compassionate appointment was not the subject matter of the aforesaid case, and therefore, judgment relied upon by the respondents is of no help to them. 17. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to allowed and is accordingly allowed. Clause 4.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013 and again Clause 4.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018 are hereby quashed. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of compassionate appointment on any Class IV posts for which technical qualifications are not required. The respondents, in future also, shall consider the cases of compassionate appointment of other candidates also on all Class IV posts. 18. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed. Certified copy, as per rules.