Hasnain Massodi JUDGMENT
1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is in appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules against judgment dated 07.06.2011 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the case of the writ petitioner-respondent deserved to be re-considered for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. Accordingly, the order dated 16.06.2009, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment made by the writ petitioner-respondent on the ground of delay has been set aside (Annexure H). Facts are not in dispute. One Wali Ul Rehman Khan was working as a Junior Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner Bandipora- respondent no. 3. He died in a militancy related activity on 01.02.1992 and was survived by his wife, Khanam Jan, and minor son Ashiq Hussain Khan-respondent no. 1. The widow, Khanam Jan, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 for a class IV post. On due consideration of her case the appellant found that she was involved in a case, FIR no. 300/1989 under Sections 148, 149 and 323 RPC. Accordingly her case was rejected on 18.08.1997. She had also re-married.
2. The writ petitioner-respondent, who was minor at the time of death of his father, applied for compassionate appointment on 04.09.2001 after his mother has relinquished her rights in his favour by executing a relinquishment deed. After considering his case at various levels the appellant-State rejected his claim vide order dated 16.06.2009 (Annexure- H). The ground of rejection disclosed in the aforesaid order is that the claim was being made belatedly and a period of 17 years has passed. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 filed SWP no. 1793/2010 relatable to the instant appeal and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 16.06.2009 (Annexure-H) and issued directions for fresh consideration of the case of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in law by setting aside order dated 16.06.2009 (annexure-H) and by issuing directions for re-considering his case. We say so for the reason that Rule 3 of SRO 43, known as the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 clearly provides an exception to the general principles of recruitment to public service. These Rules regulate the procedure for recruitment in any service or posts under the Government on compassionate grounds as an exception confining the same to a Class IV post. According to the proviso appended to Rule 3(1), the applicant is required to be eligible and qualified. In any case, the Rule stipulate that he should acquire eligibility and qualification within a period of six months.
4. In the present case, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was minor as his date of birth recorded in the school certificate is 14.10.1981. He was not eligible as he attained the age of 18 years in the year 1999, which is much after the period of six months stipulated by Rules framed under Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, the application of his mother had already been considered and was rejected on 18.08.1997 because she was involved in a criminal case. Later she has also re-married.
5. Compassionate appointments have been permitted as an exception to the general rule requiring that all appointments shall be made by a transparent procedure after issuing advertisement inviting applications from all eligible persons and after considering their competing claims. The object of compassionate appointment is to over come a grave and sudden situation which has resulted into snatching away the bread earner of the family. It has been repeatedly held that compassionate appointments are not another source of recruitment. In that reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and ors,