Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 512 (GUJ)

Solanki Lalitkumar Punjabhai v. State of Gujarat

2024-03-12

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following prayers: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of Respondent no. 2 communicated vide letter dated 18.11.2008 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compensate ground. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider their decision, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition. (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-C above. (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further relief under the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the father of the petitioner Shri Punjabhai Nathubhai Solanki expired on 12.03.2004 and the petitioner had given an application dated 30.04.2004 for appointment on compensate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that he had written a letter to the Police Officer, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar on 24.10.2007 by annexing his SSC certificate. That on 18.11.2008, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification of SCC and, therefore, the petitioner had made several oral representations to the concerned authorities to reconsider the impugned decision, but the same has not been considered. Hence, the said impugned decision is under challenged in this petition. 3. Heard Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State Authorities. 4. Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting the application of compassionate appointment of the petitioner is perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. He has submitted that the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment on 30.04.2004 which was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification of SSC. He has submitted that the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 is without application of mind and without going through the contents of the application of the petitioner. He has submitted that the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 is without application of mind and without going through the contents of the application of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the respondent authorities are trying to deprive the petitioner of the legal and legitimate right and therefore, he has urged that the present petition be allowed and the order/s passed by the respondent authorities be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State Authorities, has vehemently opposed the present petition and has submitted that the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment after demise of his father who was employed in the Idar Police Station. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification and, therefore, he made an application in the year 2007 which was rejected and on the ground of delay and latches, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, more particularly paragraphs 6 and 10, which reads as under: “6. It is respectfully submitted that the father of the petitioner Shri Punjabhai Nathabhai was expired on 12.03.2004. He was serving as armed police constable in the Idar Police Station. After the death of his father, the present petitioner has given an application to the Learned Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha dated 30.04.2004 for appointing him on the class-4 post as a peon on compassionate ground. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent No. 4 has written vide Letter No. MKM/CB2/BHM/CLASS-4/18231/2004 dated 16.12.2004. 8. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 3 has written a letter dated 05.05.2008 to respondent No. 2 regarding the petitioner’s compassionate appointment. With reply to aforesaid letter dated 05.05.2008 the respondent No. 2 has directed and canceled the application vide Letter No. RHM/08/250/G dated 18.11.2008. 9. It is respectfully submitted that while the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment he had not passed Std. 10th exam which is one of the condition of the compassionate appointment of Government Resolution dated 16.03.2005. 9. It is respectfully submitted that while the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment he had not passed Std. 10th exam which is one of the condition of the compassionate appointment of Government Resolution dated 16.03.2005. It is further submitted that due to rejection of petitioners compassionate appointment the respondent No. 4 has intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2008 whereby the petitioner was intimated that the petitioner has not passed class 10th examination which is must necessary after 16.03.2005 for compassionate appointment. Therefore, he is not entitled to get compassionate appointment for class-4. 10. It is further submitted that vide Letter No. RHM/16/142/ PEON/101/5721/2004 dated 27.11.2008 the respondent No. 3 is intimated of the final decision of respondent No. 2 regarding the petitioner’s compassionate appointment to respondent No. 4. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 intimated the petitioner vide letter No. MKM/ASC/2/COMP/18473/04 dated 18.12.2008 that he was not entitled for compassionate appointment for class-4 at the time when he submitted his application for the same in the department.” 6. Mr. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that on earlier occasion, it was informed that the application of the petitioner cannot be considered in light of the fact that he did not possess requisite educational qualification in the year 2004 and thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application in 2007, which came to be rejected and he has filed this petition i.e. in the year 2013 and therefore, there is a gross delay in approaching this Court and the law is very settled in the aspects of appointment on compassionate ground. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment dated 09.02.2024 of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 9703 of 2014 and submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the order dated 09.02.2024 passed this Court. He has also referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nanjibhai Karsanbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC-238252 and has urged that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears from the record that for the purpose of immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee, the scheme was flaunted for compassionate appointment. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears from the record that for the purpose of immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee, the scheme was flaunted for compassionate appointment. After the petitioner had made application in the year 2004 for compassionate appointment, he petitioner did not possess requisite educational qualification and, thereafter again he had made an application in the year 2007 which was rejected and against the said order, he has filed the present petition after almost 06 years. It is pertinent to note here that the application of the petitioner was decided by the respondent authority in light of the resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and 16.03.2005 issued by the concerned competent authority, which clearly suggests that the petitioner does not possess requisite educational qualification at the relevant point of time for compassionate appointment and his application came to be rejected. However, the said decision was challenged by the petitioner after almost six years and thus, there is a gross delay in approaching this Court. 7.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 175, wherein, it has been observed and held as under: Head Note: Compassionate Appointment-Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. “7.5 Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 8. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. vs. Prosper Armstrong, (1874) 3 PC 221 as under: “Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.” Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M.R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450 . In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words: “9........the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third- party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.” While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 , NDMC vs. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 . 9. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005- 2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 , wherein the following observations were made: “19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.” (Emphasis by us) 11. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds: “9. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds: “9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e. a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” (Emphasis by us) In the said case, the claim of the appellant-applicant therein for compassionate appointment was directed by this Court to be considered by the competent authority. This Court noted that in the said case, there was no lapse on the part of the appellant-applicant therein in diligently pursuing the matter. The delay in considering the application of the appellant therein was held to be solely attributable to the authorities of the State, and no part of it was occasioned by the appellant-applicant. Further, in the said case, the appellant-applicant was prejudiced not only because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the facts of the said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. In the present case, the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners cannot be said to be blameless in that they did not pursue their matter with sufficient diligence. However, the observations made in the said case as to the manner in which applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered and disposed of are relevant to the present case. As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts. 12. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006. 12. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015, i.e. after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the Courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant-State in furtherance of the application by seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus. 13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained. 15. The question as to whether a direction issued several years after an application for compassionate appointment, to consider and decide such application, is in consonance with the object of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment, has been answered in the negative. However, we shall also examine whether these appeals must succeed on a second count, i.e. whether there exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal, governing compassionate appointment vis-a-vis municipal employees dying in harness.” 7.2 In case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 Live Law (SC) 739, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed and held as under: “8. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate grounds but the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India.” 7.3 In case of Shivam Satishkumar Vaidya vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 Law Suit (Guj) 1499, the Division Bench of this Court has observed and held as under: “8. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, let refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to find out purport and object of scheme of compassionate appointment, in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 , it has been held as under: “15. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, let refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to find out purport and object of scheme of compassionate appointment, in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 , it has been held as under: “15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.... 17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Class III and IV, this Court had observed that: “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned....” 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” 9. After referring case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 considered the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. In Para 21 and 26 in the said judgment, it is observed and held as under: “21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: [Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , SCC pp. 139-140, Para 2] “2....As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590 has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case.” 10. It is also relevant to refer law laid in the recent decision in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, whereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to earlier decision in the case of N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 and summarize the principle governing grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under in Para-7: “7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 , this Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under: (i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. (ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment. (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy. (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.” 11. The decision in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Others (supra) has visited above judgments whereby in Para-9 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: “9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided. 9.2 Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.” 12. Apt to refer to decision in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Smt. Jaflidevi, 1997 (5) SCC 301 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that policy laid down by the Government regarding compassionate appointment should not be departed from by the High Court merely on account of sympathetic consideration and hardship of person concerned. 13. Thus, what perceives that compassionate appointment is exception to general rule. Person seeking compassionate appointment has no right to get it. Generally, appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling norms laid down by the State policy and/or on satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per policy. Compassionate appointment is exception to general rule of policy in the public services and the person who claims to be dependent of the deceased dying in harness has to establish that family is facing financial crunch and having no means of livelihood. The family is running in financial difficulty as only breadwinner of the family expired during his service and unless source of livelihood is provided, family would not be able to meet requirements. The family is running in financial difficulty as only breadwinner of the family expired during his service and unless source of livelihood is provided, family would not be able to meet requirements. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to come out from financial crunch which resulted due to sudden death of the employee and put family in penury. The object is not to give family the post which was held by the deceased as right.” 8. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the aforesaid reported decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.