1. Compassionate appointment — Application for higher post rejected — Offer of lower post declined — Tribunal direction for appointment to specific higher post. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. M. SHARMA, C.J.I. AND A. M. AHMADI, J.
State of M.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1993 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11717 of 1991), D/- 7-1-1993.
A candidate seeking compassionate appointment has no right to a specific post of their choice, regardless of eligibility or parity with others; they only have a right to be considered for appointment. Errors in previous appointments cannot be used to justify similar incorrect appointments.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Right to a specific post - A candidate seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is not entitled to a post of his choice merely because he fulfills the requisite eligibility qualifications (Para 3).
(B) Parity in Appointment - Claim for parity based on another applicant's appointment - Mere assertion of identical circumstances without record is insufficient - Even if a similar case existed, the applicant has no right to any particular post of his choice, but can only claim to be considered for that post - A mistake committed in an earlier case cannot be a ground for directing the State to perpetuate the error (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
The son of a deceased employee applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. While the State offered a post of lower divisional clerk, the applicant sought appointment to a higher post. The Tribunal directed the State to appoint the applicant to the higher post.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal was not right in allowing the prayer for appointment to a specific higher post as there was no rule or government instruction supporting such a claim.
Issues: Whether a person seeking compassionate appointment is entitled to a specific post of their choice based on eligibility or parity with other similarly situated persons.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate for compassionate appointment has no right to a particular post of his choice; he can only claim to be considered for a post. The decision of which post to offer rests with the authority, and an error in a previous appointment does not create a right for others to benefit from that error.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Eligibility for a post versus entitlement to a specific post of choice — Claim of parity based on similar appointments of other candidates. (Para 3 )
3. Eligibility does not grant a right to a specific post; parity cannot be claimed on the basis of previous erroneous appointments. (Para 3 )
4. A candidate for compassionate appointment has no right to a particular post of choice, only a right to be considered for such post. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal judgment set aside — Appointment to specific higher post rejected — Option to accept previously offered lower post granted. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Does eligibility for a post entitle a candidate for compassionate appointment to a specific post of their choice?
No. A candidate is not entitled to a higher post of their choice merely because they fulfill the requisite eligibility qualifications; they can only claim to be considered for that post. (Para 3 )
7. Can a candidate claim a specific post based on the appointment of another person in similar circumstances?
No. Even if circumstances are similar, the applicant has no right to a particular post of choice. Furthermore, if a mistake was made in a previous case, it cannot be used as a ground to perpetuate that error. (Para 3 )
Judgment
JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
2. The respondents father - Shri J. P. Sharma, who was a constable, died in 1978 and in November, 1981, the respondent applied for appointment as Sub-Inspector on compassionate grounds. The matter was examined at several levels and ultimately the post of a lower divisional clerk was offered to the respondent, which he did not accept. He moved the State Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the appellant - State for his appointment as APP-Grade-II. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that under the instructions in question the respondent is not entitled to a higher post of his choice merely because he fulfils the requisite eligibility qualifications. Learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to defend his case by citing the illustration of another applicant - Rajiv Dwivedi --- who, according to him, was appointed in similar circumstances as APP-Grade II. The facts relating to Rajiv Dwivedi are not on record and it is the mere assertion of the respondent that the circumstances are identical. Even assuming that Rajiv Dweivedis case was similar to that of the respondent, the applicant has no right to any particular post of his choice, he can only claim to be considered for that post. It would ultimately be for the authority to decide if some common principle was involved in the two cases. If a mistake was committed in an earlier case, that cannot be a ground for directing the State to perpetuate the error for all times to come. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show before us any rule or Government instructions under which the respondent can claim the post of APP-Grade II.
4. In these facts and circumstances, we think that the Tribunal was not right in allowing the case of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the prayer of the respondent for his appointment as APP-Grade II is rejected. It will, however, be open to the respondent to indicate his agreement to accept the post of lower divisional clerk which was offered to him by the appellants in 1988 and if he does so, the appellants shall promptly appoint him against that post.
5. The appeal is allowed without a order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 845
