appointment was rejected by G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, on the ground that his father had not completed three years service after substantive appointment. The said objection was overruled by this Court, after considering relevant provisions of the Statute. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “ 4 . The University has been established under Govind Ballabh Pant Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidaylaya Adhiniyam, 1958. Chapter XIII of the Statute of the University deals with appointment of staff. Clause 1(d) of Chapter XIII of the Statute, which has been relied in the counter affidavit, is reproduced below:- “ Chapter XIII Appointment of Staff 1.(a) All appointments shall be made strictly on the basis of merit. ….. (d) A dependent (wife or husband, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter) of an employee of the University who meets with untimely death or gets permanent disability during the service period may be appointed on any non-teaching post for which he/she is suitable and fulfils the minimum qualifications, without selection procedure. WITH THE PROVISO THAT: (i) The above facility will be given to only the dependents of employees who have put in at least 3 years continuous service in the University and only if there is no other earning member in the family of the deceased.” 5 . Perusal of clause 1(d) of Chapter XIII of the Statute reveals that upon death of an employee of the University, his dependant may be appointed on a nonteaching post, without requiring him to face selection. It further reveals that appointment on compassionate ground can be given even when an employee of the University suffers from permanent disability during service period. First proviso to clause 1 (d), however, puts a condition that benefit of compassionate appointment will be given only to dependants of such employees, who have put in minimum three years continuous service and further that there is no earning member in the family. 6 . Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is not rejected on the ground that there is an earning member in his family and the sole ground taken for rejecting his claim is that his father had not completed three years’ service after his regularization.
