SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Pat) 935

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.
Uday Kant Jha Son Of Tara Kant Jha
Versus
State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner-cum-secretary
CWJC No. 2442 of 2003
Decided On : JULY 20, 2009

An illegal appointment on compassionate grounds is void ab initio and cannot be cured solely based on long continuation.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Writ Application - Circular dated 12.7.1977, Circular dated 30th November, 1984, Circular dated 5.10.1991 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to compassionate appointments and highlighted the prohibition for the appointment of a married daughter or son-in-law on compassionate grounds. The court also emphasized the procedure for appointment on compassionate grounds and the consequences of an illegal appointment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the termination of his services based on an allegedly illegal appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appointment was made before a subsequent government circular prohibited the appointment of a son-in-law on compassionate grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds was impermissible as per the government circulars and the prescribed procedure for such appointments was not followed. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the appointment should be allowed to continue due to the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds, the applicability of subsequent government circulars, and the adherence to the prescribed procedure for such appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds was void ab initio due to the violation of government circulars and the prescribed appointment procedure. The court also emphasized that the absence of fraud or misrepresentation did not validate the illegal appointment.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application and directed the respondents to examine the appointment of another allegedly similarly situated person and take appropriate steps if found to be in violation of the law.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

2. The prayer in this writ application reads as follows:

"The present application is for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 25.1.2003 vide memo no. 555 passed by the respondent no. 2 alongwith the order of communication dated 1.2.2003 vide memo no. 139 passed by the respondent no. 4 as contained in Annexures-11 and 12 respectively to this writ application; whereby this impugned order, the services of the petitioner has been terminated on a ground of illegal appointment which is not actually a ground as the same is evident from the impugned order dated 25.1.2003 itself as this appointment is neither fake or forge, but a compassionate appointment. The said impugned order itself speaks that the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1988 itself on compassionate ground, after the death of his father-in- law namely Balkrishna Jha, who was fourth grade Government employee and died in harness in the year 1986 itself where the appointment letter of the petitioner was issued on 8.3.1988 vide memo no. 893 by the Director i.e. respondent no. 2 and the most important ground for termination of service of the petitioner has been shown that son-in- law is not eligible for the appointment of compassionate ground. Although the ground for termination of service has already been decided by this Honble Court and several directions have also been passed time to time in identical case which is fully covered the petitioners case. Apart from this the Honble High Court and the Honble Apex Court has also passed several orders as if an employee continued on a post for several years his service should not be terminated either the appointing officer was not competent to appoint the petitioner or the process of selection was not properly followed by the authorities, hence it should not be reopened and appointments already made should not be disturbed after a long period. And further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Junior Account Clerk on which place he was posted and further be pleased to pay the petitioner his entire due salary and month to month salary alongwith all consequential benefits, according to law."

3. Mr. Sharma in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that the appointment of the petitioner when it was made in the year 1988, there was no clear prohibition in the guideline circular issued by the Government on the subject laying down that a son-in-law would not be a dependent of the deceased employee dying in harness for his appointment on compassionate ground. He would submit that such clarification for the first time was issued by a Government circular only on 5.10.1991 and therefore, if the petitioner had already been appointed in the year 1989, his appointment could not have been questioned on the basis of aforementioned subsequent Government circular dated 5.10.1991. He would further submit that in any event neither the petitioner nor the mother-in-law of the petitioner had made any misrepresentation while seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and therefore, removal of the petitioner after he had been allowed to continue in service for a period of 15 years, was wholly illegal. In this context he refers to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Indra Mohan Rai, reported in 2009(2) PLJR 869. He would finally submit that it is not only in the case of the petitioner that such son-in-law came to be appointed on compassionate ground but even earlier in the year 1983, one Rampadarath Thakur being a son-in-law of the deceased employee was appointed in the same department on compassionate, ground under the orders of the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation-cum- Deputy Secretary of the Irriga










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top