Biswanath Somadder, J.@mdashAffidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. This matter appears under the heading "Old Cases".
2. Perusing the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court essentially seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category upon the death of his father who was a Gram Panchayat Karmee in Akui-II Gram Panchayat, situated in the district of Bankura. The writ petitioner''s father died on 31st July, 1986. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court sometime in the year, 1997 and obtained an order from the writ Court on 23rd October, 1997. Pursuant thereto, the proposal/prayer for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category was taken up for consideration by the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Bankura. By an order, as contained in a memo dated 7th August, 1998, the said authority rendered a decision in the matter, rejecting the proposal/prayer of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category. This decision of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Bankura, is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ proceeding.
3. Perusing the impugned decision, it appears that the same has been rendered in conformity with the directions given by this Court in its order dated 23rd October, 1997, and is also supported with cogent reasons. It has been categorically held, inter alia, that the petitioner''s father, having died on 31st July, 1986, he could not have waited till 30th January, 1990, seeking compassionate appointment.
4. There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that in case of a person seeking compassionate appointment, what is of utmost importance is to determine the immediate requirement (emphasis supplied) for sustenance of the family members of the deceased. A family member of a deceased employee cannot sit tight for almost four years and thereafter make a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that not only has the writ petitioner sat tight for almost four years after the death of the concerned employee, being his father, he has now approached this Court relying on a Government Order which came into force on 9th September, 1988, i.e., two years after the death of the employee concerned. It is patently obvious that the writ petitioner chose to make a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category upon laying his hands on a favourable Government Order issued almost two years after the death of his father. It is evident from a plain reading of the impugned decision that there was no Government Order which prevailed at the time of death of the concerned employee that allows benefit of compassionate appointment to be given to his family members. That apart, while disposing of the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before this Court, there was a direction for consideration of the writ petitioner''s representation by the concerned respondent authority in accordance with law, which has been duly complied with.
5. In such circumstances, the decision of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Bankura, cannot be interfered with, by the writ Court.
6. In any event, an applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group/class of post as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground too, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. As a rule, public appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement, upon taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family (see
7. The aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court has recently been followed by this Court in at least two decisions, being
8. The writ petition is misconceived and the issue relating to scope for compassionate appointment is also squarely covered by the judgments referred above. As such, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner. For reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
