INDU SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the petitioner who was on class -II post, died in June, 1998 while serving the Government of Bihar as an Artist in the Department of Information and Public Relation. The petitioner filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was forwarded for appointment to class -III post. The compassionate committee rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 13.9.1999 on the ground of over -age. The petitioner challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 6897/2002. The writ petition was disposed of on 4.9.2000, Annexure -2, stating therein that petitioner is aged about 48 years and her husband died in harness, and the case was remitted to the respondent to re -consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground on relaxation of age and communicate to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. The order was not complied with and as such the petitioner filed M.J.C. no. 38/2001 for initiating a competent proceeding. However, during pendency of M.J.C. a letter bearing memo no. 1395 dated 16.3.2001 was issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar stating, inter -alia, to initiate a proceeding for appointment of the petitioner on class -IV post, Annexure -3. The petitioner has thus filed writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the appointment letter going to be issued and to modify it suitably in accordance with law. i.e. instead of class -IV post the appointment letter be issued for class -III post as recommended and also for issue of appointment letter with effect from 13.9.1999, the date of meeting of the Central Compassionate Committee or from the date on which the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment.

(2.) THE provision for appointment on compassionate ground is exception to the normal rule of appointment. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. The object of appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to get over financial crisis due to death of the sole bread earner. In the case cf Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 138, the Apex Court has held that as a rule appointments in 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 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 dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency, the provision of employment in lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory.

(3.) IN the case of Rupendra Kumar Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1999 (1) PLJR 842 in similar situation a Bench of this Court held that this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner by directing the respondent University to appoint the petitioner on class III post on compassionate ground. The stand of the University that just because there are vacancies in class III post, all such vacancies cannot be filed up on compassionate ground is justified. However, it was observed that this Court does not pass any order in favour of the petitioner save and except observing that if there is any open selection for appointment to class III post and if the petitioner applies pursuant to such selection, in that case the petitioner 'scase may be considered on merits and in accordance with law. However, if the petitioner appears in such selection process for recruitment to the post of clerk, in that case his candidature should not be debarred on the ground of age and his age should be suitably relaxed for the period during which he worked on class IV post.