JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Assistant on 16.1.1996 on compassionate ground. He made a representation-dated 28.12.98 to the respondents for appointment on the post of Upper Division Clerk claiming parity with some other persons who were appointed on compassionate ground. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 6/9/10.11.99. The petitioner again moved an application-dated 24.12.1999 as well as reminder-dated 5.6.2000 reiterating his claim which was also rejected by respondent No. 3, the Director Administration, Khadi & village Industries Commission, Lucknow.
3. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal on 5.7,2000 before the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, 3, Irla Road, Vile Parley (West) Mumbai. Since the appeal was not being decided by respondent No. 2, he filed writ petition No. 52369 of 2004 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order,
4. It is stated that in the mean time respondent No. 3 without jurisdiction decided the appeal, which has given rise to the present writ petition.
5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal filed against the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 lies to respondent No. 2, the
6. Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Mumabi. He urged that Director Administration, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Lucknow could not have usurped the power of Chairman and decide the appeal against his own order.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 12 of the writ petition which is as under-
That one Mr. V.S. Kastwar, Assistant Director died during the service period his wife Smt. Kusum late Kastwar was appointed on the post of U.D.C. Sri P. K. Thakur Assistant Development Officer died during the service period, his wife Smt. Sulochana Thakur wax appointed on the post of U.D.C. Sri V.N. Singh (Accountant) died during the service period, his son Ashok Kumar Singh was appointed on the post of Surveyor even without any training, Sri V.K. Bajpayee (Accountant) died during the service period, his wife Smt. Anjani Kumari Bajpayee was appointed on the post of U.D.C. The petitioner has made a representation dated 28.12.1998 regarding these appointments.
8. Relying upon the averments made in aforesaid paragraph 12 of the writ petition as quoted above, the counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri V.S. Kastwar, Assistant Director died during the service period, his wife was appointed on the post of U.D.C. and similarly other persons have been given appointment on the said post but the petitioner has been discriminated while giving him appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Lower Division Assistant.
9. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit in which it has been averred that the appeal of the petitioner was considered by respondent No. 2 as per directions of the Court in writ petition no, 53369 of 2004. It is also averred that the order dated 15/21.2.2005 was issued under the signatures of respondent No. 3 with approval of respondent No. 2, the Commissioner as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. In any case the claim of the petitioner has once again been considered by respondent No. 2 who has passed a detailed and speaking order on 22.8.2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on higher post which has also been communicated to the petitioner.
10. The counsel for the respondents has urged that the appeal of the petitioner was considered by respondent No. 2 and not by respondent No. 3 who has only communicated the reasons for dismissal of the appeal dated 15/21.2.2005. The communication is as under:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, was appointed as LDC with the Khadi & Village Industries Commission on Compassionate ground, consequent to the death of his father lute Raj Narain Singh while employed with KVIC as Asstt. Development Officer. At the time of sudden demise of is father Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh submitted an application for employment with the Khadi and Village Industries Commission on Compassionate ground. The case of Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh was considered keeping in view the circumstances and also the prevalent guidelines from Government of India and accordingly he was offered an appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk vide Appointment Order No. Adm-I/NGR/Comp.Apptt/CL-III/95-96 dated 12/16.1.1996 which was duly accepted by him and he accordingly reported for duly on 29.1.1996. With the above, the family of late Raj Narain Singh was fully satisfied. While appointing Shri Singh as LDC though he was not having the prescribed typing skill, but a relaxation to pass the typing test within a period of one year by availing 3 chances from the date of his joining the services, was granted to him, which he availed and accordingly passed the typing test in the 2nd chance.
Subsequently, in 1998 Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh represented that keeping in view of is qualification, he should have been appointed as LDC as has been done in some other cases. This demand perhaps was an after thought, for which the Commission replied him suitably stating that it does not fall within the purview of Compassionate appointment.
Further he approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad through a Writ Petition No. 53369 of 2004 along with which he submitted a copy of appeal purported to have been submitted by him to the Commission. The Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the writ petition of Shri Singh ordered that the respondent No. 2, i.e. Chairman KVIC shall decide the appeal dated 5.7.2000 (enclosed to the petition as Annexure- VI) expeditiously preferably within a period of 2 months. Accordingly, the appeal of Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh is disposed off with the observation as under: -
1) The KVIC has followed the guidelines of the Government of India, O.M. prescribed on compassionate appointment of wards of its deceased employee on compassionate ground. While efforts are made to accommodate maximum cases, but it has been the fact that the Commission has not been able to provide employment to all, even to the lower level of post in case of all such families. However, in case of late Raj Narain Singh, his son Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh was provided the employment in the post of LDC very promptly to support the family of late Raj Narain Singh. He was offered the post of LDC and the same was accepted by him as mentioned above. Has there been any objection to his appointment as LDC on compassionate ground, he or his family could object to it before joining the post offered to him which he did not do so.
2) The comparison by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh himself with the other compassionate appointees cannot be accepted as a valid ground for compassionate appointment. The main objective of the scheme is to grant appointment in compassionate ground to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Hence, his ward may be qualified even for higher posts does not get accommodated in the posts carrying equivalent qualifications interalia, means that the appointment on compassionate ground is not offered matching to the qualifications of the appointee but an immediate assistance is rendered to the family with possible relaxation also, which has been done in case of Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, by providing relaxation in typing test a basic requirement for appointment to the post of LDC which he has accepted. Therefore, the main objective to relieve the family of the deceased Government servant has been met out, and his appeal for appointment to the post of UDC cannot be acceded to.
This is issued with the approval of the Commissioner.
Sd. Illegible DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
11. It appears from the above communication that the authorities have followed the guidelines of the Government of India as well as the guidelines of the K.V.I.C. prescribed in Standing Order No. 1256 wherein it is clearly provided that when a person has accepted compassionate appointment to a particular post, the set of circumstances which led to his initial appointment should be deemed to have ceased to exist. The person who has accepted compassionate appointment on a particular post should strive in his career like his colleagues for future advancement. Any claims for appointment to higher post on consideration of compassion should invariably be rejected.
12. Having considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the impugned order is only a communication of reasons approved by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner by which he has been informed as to why his appeal has been rejected by respondent No. 2.
13. The crux of the matter of the petitioner is that he was offered appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Lower Division Assistant, which he has accepted. It is settled law that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right but is exception to normal mode of recruitment. The petitioner having accepted the post of Lower Division Assistant on compassionate ground he could not have claimed higher post on the ground of parity with some other persons who have been offered appointment on the post of U.D.C. Some of them were offered appointment on the post of U.D.C. and some of them were offered appointment on the post of L.D.C. Their case is different then the case of the petitioner and there is no question of parity. Even though the impugned order may have been passed by respondent No. 3, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as he has accepted the compassionate appointment on the post of L.D.C. hence he cannot claim higher post subsequently on the ground of parity.
14. In any case respondent No. 2 by a fresh order dated 22.8.2005 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner ratifying the reasons given in the impugned order setting the controversy in the writ petition.
15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.