IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment is required to be made on the post considering educational qualification of applicant on date of application/dependant of deceased employee.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2871/2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant – Delhi Jal Board and has confirmed the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1420/2017, by which the Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the candidature of the respondent for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), the original opponent - Delhi Jal Board has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the respondent herein applied for compassionate appointment of her daughter in the Delhi Jal Board – the appellant herein for the post of LDC. The said application was made on 23.03.2010. That by order dated 01.05.2012, the respondent’s daughter was appointed as Assistant Meter Reader considering her qualification at the time when application for compassionate appointment was made. According to the respondent, she was eligible for the post of LDC.

2.1 The respondent then approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1420/2017 claiming the appointment of her daughter on the post of LDC. It was the case on behalf of the respondent that by the time the application for compassionate appointment came to be considered in 2012, her daughter acquired the requisite qualification for the post of LDC, i.e., Graduation. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the respondent that she ought to have been appointed on the post of LDC. The Tribunal accepted the same and directed the appellant – Delhi Jal Board to appoint the respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 3.5.2019 in O.A. No. 1420/2017 was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court at the instance of the appellant herein. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, which has given rise to the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that qualification for the post of LDC was Graduation. It is submitted that admittedly when the respondent applied for appointment on compassionate grounds for the post of LDC, i.e., 23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and therefore she was not having the requisite qualification for the post of LDC.

3.1 It is submitted that subsequent acquiring of the qualification for the post of LDC cannot be considered and the qualification prevailing when the application for compassionate appointment was made is required to be considered. It is submitted that therefore both, the Tribunal and the High Court have committed a very serious error in directing the appellant to appoint respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.

4. While opposing the present appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has made the following submissions :

(i) that the time limit for making appointment on compassionate grounds was five years. Therefore, when the respondent’s daughter acquired the requisite qualification for the post of the LDC within five years, she ought to have been appointed on the post of LDC, considering acquisition of the graduation qualification within five years;

(ii) that as per the Policy for compassionate appointments, while considering the appointment on compassionate grounds, only bar with respect to age shall be applicable and not with respect to educational qualification. In support of above, reliance is placed on clause 6 (A & B) of the Policy which provides for Exemptions and Relaxations, while making compassionate appointments; and

(iii) that the relevant date for considering the educational qualification shall be the date on which the application for compassionate appointment was considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment was made.

4.1 Makin