IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4518/2025 Decided on: 28.03.2025 Mahesh Kumar Rikhi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ankit Kaloti & Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground has been turned down by respondents No.4 & 5, hence, this writ petition. 3 Petitioner’s father was in service of respondents No.4 & 5. He died in harness on 19.12.2019. Petitioner is permanent resident of State of Punjab. After the death of his father, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Respondents No.4 & 5 in a meeting convened on 02.03.2021 considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, however, on 27.01.2022 (Annexure P- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2), respondents No.4 & 5 informed the petitioner that his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as he did not possess the bonafide Himachali certificate. 4. Rejection of case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of not possessing the bonafide Himachali Certificate, is no more res-integra and has been considered in Sandeep Kaur Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 The petitioner therein was denied bonafide Himachali Certificate on the ground that she was not a resident of Himachal Pradesh. On that count, she was held ineligible for appointment on compassionate basis by the respondents. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that law does not compel a man to do what is not possible for him to perform. Insistence on such certificate violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. No citizen can be discriminated on the basis of residence. Insistence that children of the deceased employee should produce bonafide Himachali Certificate cannot be sustained. Relevant portion from the decision reads as under:- “17) There is a maxim in law by name ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’ which means that the law does not compel a man to do what is not possible for him to perform. 18) This principle has been followed and re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and others3 ; Mohammed Gazi Vs. State of M.P. & others4; 2CWP No. 4304/2023 decided on 26.07.2023 3(1999) 8 SCC 266 4(2000) 4 SCC 342 3 and Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. & others.5 19) As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioner should provide a certificate of Bonafide Resident of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the petitioner has contended that though initially Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura Public Employment (Requirement As To Residence) Rules, 1954 were in force in the State of Himachal Pradesh which required production of such certificates, these Rules were deleted by the State Government after 20.04.1974. 20) It is further contended that insistence on such a certificate would violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and even the main clauses of the policy dt. 07.03.2019 being relied on by the respondent do not require such a Bonafide Himachali Certificate. 21) We agree with both these contentions raised by the petitioner’s Counsel. As per Art.16(2) of the Constitution no citizen can be discriminated on basis of residence. So insisting that petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced. 22) For all these aforesaid reasons, this Writ petition is allowed; the action of the respondents in refusing to give the petitioner compassionate appointment in the 2nd respondentCorporation vide letter dt. 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) is set aside; the respondents are directed to accept the Character Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Rupnagar, Punjab, though it is not issued by the Executive Magistrate or Tehsildar; the requirement of furnishing a Bonafide Himachali Certificate contained in Office Memorandum dt. 07.03.2019 for purpose of providing employment on compassionate grounds is set aside as being violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India; and the respondents no. 2 & 3 are directed to provide such compassionate appointment to the petitioner within four weeks.” 5(2002) 5 SCC 54 4 Ratio of above decision applies to the facts of the case and in favour of the petitioner. Respondents’ rejection of petitioner’s case for compassionate employment for want of his bonafide Himachali Certificate is untenable. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned decision as communicated to the petitioner in office letter dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) and dated 03.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate ground, in accordance with law, within six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th March, 2025(rohit)