RAKESH RAI Vs. DIRECTOR MADHYAMIK SHAKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on Compassionate ground.

(2.) LATE Gyanendra Rai (father of the petitioner), who had been working on the post of Assistant Teacher, died on 5-10-1987 during the tenure of his service. The widow of the deceased nominated her son (petitioner) for appointment. Though he was qualified to be appointed as a class III employee, the Management, of the institution offered a class IVth post to him on the ground that no post in Class III was available. The petitioner, who now possesses a degree of Bachelor in Science, did not accept the said offer and requested the management to provide a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification. When no heed was paid to his request, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16565 to 1991 and this Court while disposing of the said petition on 21-5-1991, directed the petitioner to make a representation before the respondents. The respondents were also directed to decide the representation by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order, and to take proper steps for appointment in case he is found entitled to be appointed.

(3.) IT is not disputed that when an employee dies in harness, one of his legal representatives is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. In a similar case, Smt. Sushma Gosai v Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976, the Apex Court ruled that there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress IT is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.