Judgment:
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The father of the petitioner, late Baleshwar Prasad Singh, was employee of Bihar School Examination Board, He died in harness on 21-3-1992. After death a petition was filed by one Jitendra Kumar, nephew of the late employee for appointment on compassionate ground. The said petition was considered and was rejected vide resolution of the compassionate committee dated 24-9-1997 as it was not in order. Moreover, nephew of the employee does not come within the purview of appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner claiming to be son of the late employee filed an application on 8-2-1997. In the order, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner abbut filing of the petition on 8-2-1997 is not correct. Accordingly, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10-11-2001, Annexure-1. The petitioner ftas thus filed writ petition for quashing the order, Annexure-1, and for issuance of direction for appointment on compassionate ground.
2. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to pro vide, financial assistance immediately to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 21-3-1992. His nephew filed petition for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected on 24-9-1997, The petitioner claims to have filed petition on 8-2-1997 for appointment on compassionate ground. In the order, Annexure-1, it has been stated that claim of filing petition on 8-2-1997 is incorrect. Issuance of order by this Court after about 10 years for appointment on compassionate ground would not be in consonance with the object of the appointment on compassionate ground.
3. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. : [1994]3SCR893 , the Apex Court has held that as a rule appointment in public service should be made strictly the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax 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. The Apex Court has concluded the decision holding that compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
4. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, I find no reason to issue any writ for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground after 10 years of death of the employee. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.