Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate quite in extensio in this appeal filed challenging the
decision of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with non-granting of compassionate appointment.
2. Appellant's father died on 05.07.2007. Petitioner was married even when her father was alive. Materials show that her husband Alok Barya is
working in a private telecommunication limited company. That fact is disclosed by the Petitioner in her own pleadings. After the demise of the father
on 05.07.2007, the writ petition from which this writ appeal arises, was instituted in the year 2018, may be after a couple of representations. The trump
card of the Petitioner is that the State Government had issued Circular on 22.03.2016, wherein married daughters were also brought within the ambit
of eligible members for compassionate appointment.
3. It is settled law that compassionate appointment in public employment cannot be treated as matter of gratis by way of right to appointment by
inheritance. The support given through provisions for compassionate appointment are intended to get over the financial crippling of the family of a
person who died in harness. Immediate succor is the concept. Running down through series of judicial precedents handed down by the Apex Court,
from Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India; (1989) 4 SCC 468, the clear statement of law is that while compassionate appointment has to be given at the
earliest required point of time, such appointment cannot be made to encroach into the field for the direct recruitments or other mode of appointment. It
is the law that no compassionate appointment can be made unless the need to do so is found to the satisfaction of the employer, in accordance with
law. Even if there is any circular bringing married daughter within the scope of compassionate appointment, the financial dependency of that married
daughter on the deceased parent has to be established to the satisfaction of the employer. Otherwise, it will open up the flood gate for large scale
undue compassionate appointments. That is not the policy of law. Nor is it the policy of the circular referred to by the Appellant.
4. The learned Single Judge has adverted to and considered all facts relevant for decision on the writ petition. Consideration and reasoning is in
accordance with law. There is no breach of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction the appreciation of facts and law has been done and justice
has been rendered to the dismissal of the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
