Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness (Tenth Amendment) Rules 2014– r.5(1)(i), proviso to – Eligibility criteria and additional qualifications– Non-fulfillment of additional qualification – Respondent appointed on compassionate grounds, terminated – High Court directed appellants to consider his candidature for appointment to an alternate post – On appeal, held: An employee appointed on compassionate grounds is not granted an exception from the service conditions that have to be complied under the relevant Rules – In the present case, though the respondent possessed the educational qualification prescribed under the Rules, he did not acquire the qualifications prescribed under the provisos to r.5(1)(i) – He ought to have possessed both the eligibility criteria and qualifications to continue in the said post – Having been granted an appointment to the post of Assistant, the respondent was required to fulfill the dual conditions of obtaining a certificate of proficiency in computers (which he did) and to achieve the requisite speed in typing within a stipulated period (which he did not despite two opportunities) – His termination due to failure to clear the typing test was in terms of the stipulation contained in the order of appointment and provisions of r.5(1) – Further, appointment to an alternate post cannot be directed by High Court – View taken by the High Court relying on its earlier decision in Mukul Sagar case is erroneous as it does not lay down correct principle of law, however the appointment which may have been granted in the said case not to be disturbed – Impugned judgment of Division Bench and the judgment of Single Judge set aside – Writ petition filed by respondent before High Court is dismissed, as also in CA No.5213 of 2022.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Rules relating to, interpretation of – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16 – Held: Rules relating to compassionate appointment must be interpreted bearing in mind that it is an exception to the principle of equality of opportunity – Compassionate appointments provide an entry-level concession – The appointment cannot be used to seek subsequent concessions merely because the appointment was made on compassionate grounds – Any concession subsequently provided, unless the rules stipulate, would be violative of the principle envisaged in Articles 14, 16 – Appointment through compassionate grounds only grants the family of the employee who dies in harness an entry into the services, which is one of the many modes of appointment – Once appointed, all the employees irrespective of the mode of appointment are to be treated alike, unless the relevant Rules stipulate otherwise.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Nature, object of – Held: There is no vested right to compassionate appointment – It is an exception to Article 16 which embodies the principle of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment – Compassionate appointment is offered to a person belonging to the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness to tide over the financial crisis resulting from the death of the wage earner of the family – Terms on which compassionate appointment is offered under the rules or scheme governing compassionate appointment have to be complied with– Constitution of India – Article 16. Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Appointment to an alternate post – Impermissibility of – Respondent was appointed on a temporary basis in Class III post – Terminated – High Court directed appointment to an alternate post in Class-IV post on compassionate grounds – Held: Appointment to an alternate post cannot be directed by the High Court – This would permit entry into a Class IV post at the expense of others who may be waiting in line for compassionate appointment or for which persons who seek appointment in open competition would be eligible. General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 : [2008] 12 SCR 576; V. Sivamurthy v. State of AP, (2008) 13 SCC; Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 205 : [2009] 9 SCR 791; State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Karampal Sahu, (2009) 11 SCC 453 : [2009] 6 SCR 63; Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP, (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249; State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281 : [2012] 7 SCR 1072 – relied on.
Mukul Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh Decision dtd. 4 July 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 12737/2018; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd Rehan Khan Decision dtd. 25 August 2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad – disapproved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.