Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
State of Chhatisgarh & Others
Versus
Dhirjo Kumar Sengar
Civil Appeal No. 3242 of 2009
Decided on : 05-05-2009
2008 (15) SCALE 39; (2007) 6 SCC 162; (2007) 8 SCC 549 – Relied upon
(b) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 16 – Respondent merely producing an unregistered deed of adoption – Not proving compliance of dutta human ceremony or other statutory conditions – Burden of proving aspects lied on respondent – Not discharging his burden – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106. (Para 18)
(c) Service law – Compassionate appointment – Application for compassionate appointment rejected by Joint Director as per rules – Respondent obtaining appointment from an officer not competent to do so by suppressing the fact of earlier rejection – Fraud – Said appointment later cancelled – No show cause issued to respondent before cancellation – No infirmity – Natural justice not applicable. (Para 18, 19, 21)
(2006) 11 SCC 42; (1980) 4 SCC 379 : AIR 1981 SC 136; (2003) 8 SCC 319; (2007) 7 SCC 434; JT 2009 (3) SC 616 – Relied upon
(2006) 2 SCC 315; (2002) 9 SCC 700; (1996) 7 SCC 118 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
One Chittaranjan Singh Sengar (since deceased) was posted as Head Master of a Government School. He was unmarried. He, Chittaranjan Singh Sengar, did not make any nomination in regard to his provident fund and other dues.
Brother and nephew (the respondent herein) of the deceased were granted a succession certificate. In his application for the said certificate the respondent did not make any averment that he was adopted by the said Chittaranjan Singh Sengar.
On the basis of the succession certificate the respondent applied for compassionate appointment which was dismissed by the Joint Director Education. Despite such dismissal, a purported order of compassionate appointment was passed in favour of the respondent by the Deputy Director (Education) which was eventually canceled.
Respondent filed an Original Application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the validity of the said order dated 9.06.1997 which was dismissed.
A writ petition was preferred thereagainst by the respondent, which has been allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result:
Appeal allowed with cost.
Judgment :-
S.B. Sinha, J.
Leave granted.
2. One Chittaranjan Singh Sengar (since deceased) was posted as Head Master of a Government School, Baradwar, Dist-Champa, Janjgir, Chhattisgarh. He was unmarried. Respondents father G.S. Sengar was his brother. Respondent and his father applied for grant of a succession certificate before the Civil Judge, Class I, Distt. Janjgir. The said application was allowed by an order dated 15.01.1996 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Janjgir.
3. In the said application for grant of the said succession certificate, the respondent did not make any averment that he was adopted by the said Chittaranjan Singh Sengar.
4. Indisputably, Chittaranjan Singh Sengar did not make any nomination in regard to his provident fund and other dues. The said succession certificate was produced before the Deputy Director (Education) who noticed:
"Legal succession certificate of Shri Dheeraj Kumar Sengar S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Sengar, legal heirs of Late Shri Chittaranjan Singh Sengar, R/o Village - Latia, Tahsil -Janjgeer Bilaspur is forwarded for information and implementation. They produce his original certificate regarding qualification before concerned block/ principal for his observation."
5. Respondent filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected by the Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur.
6. However, despite the fact that his application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the Joint Director, a purported order of compassionate appointment came to be passed in his favour by the Deputy Director (Education). The said offer of appointment, however, was cancelled by an order dated 9.06.1997, stating:
"On the basis of above reference and in absence of Legal Succession Letter your compassionate appointment order No. 731/Estab-1/Comp.Appoint Endorse No. 96-97 has been rejected from the current effect."
7. Respondent filed an Original Application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the validity of the said order dated 9.06.1997, which by reason of an order dated 5.06.2000 was dismissed, holding:
"10. When anyone claims compassionate appointment on the basis of adoption, he should prove fully that he was validly adopted. The applicant has failed in discharging the burden. It has to be remembered that instructions about compassionate appointment have to be interpreted strictly because such appointments amount to a dilution of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
8. Before the learned Tribunal, a contention as regards breach of the principles of natural justice was raised. The learned Tribunal answered the said contention in the following words :
"12. The applicant argues that no show cause notice was given to him. This argument has no force. The Supreme Court has held in State of M.P. Vs. Shyama Padhi (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2219) and S. Mohan Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (1998 SCC (L&S) 1231, that no show cause notice is necessary in cases of illegal appointments. The Supreme Court has also upheld the concept of post decisional hearing in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India (1991 (1) SCC 658). The applicant was fully heard by the Tribunal. He could not prove beyond doubt that he was validly appointed. The Supreme Court has observed as follows in the Board of Mining Examination Vs. Ramjee (1977 (2) SCC 256):
"Natural Justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine nor a judicial cure all. If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against, the form, essential procedural propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction."
9. A writ petition was preferred thereagainst by the respondent, wh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
