Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Abdul Jahid Khan vs State on 27 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6695 / 2006
Abdul Jahid Khan S/o Late Shri Abdul Aziz Khan, Aged About 26 Years,
Chuli Ki Bagichi, Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai-
Madhopur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Education
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The District Education Officer (Elementary), Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
3. The Senior Deputy District Education, Gangapur City, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.A. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy. Govt. Counsel _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA / Order 27/04/2017 Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
Abdul Aziz Khan, the father of the petitioner was a Government Servant. He on 02.10.1979 was appointed as Teacher Grade-III. The father of the petitioner on 05.12.1990 died in harness. Petitioner at the time of death of his father was minor. Petitioner attained majority on 05.07.1998.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per Rules, the petitioner had to submit an application for compassionate appointment within forty-five days. There was a delay on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted an (2 of 2) [CW-6695/2006] application after seventy-days. The father of the petitioner died twenty- four years ago. Petitioner attained majority nineteen-years ago.
Recently, a Co-ordinate Bench relying upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8202/2013) decided on 17.09.2015, has held as under :-
"11. From a survey of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed out hereinabove, it is evident that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right. The very object is to relieve the family of unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused by the sudden demise of the bread-winner of the family in order to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The object is not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle a family for compassionate appointment. The authorities concerned are obliged 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 then a job is to be offered. The claim for compassionate appointment after a long lapse of reasonable period would defeat the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness. An appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the recruitment regarding appointment being made on open invitation of application on merits. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."
I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra).
Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.