Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 469
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K. Keshote, K.C. Sharma
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Dharmendra Parth - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 495 of 2002
Decided On : 05/10/2004
Manish Bhandari, for the Appellant
Pradeep Jain for Narendra Jain, for the Respondents
Compassionate appointments can only be given against Class III or Class IV posts, and vacancies must exist for such appointments.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Applicability of Rules - Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 - [Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949] - The court discussed the provisions of compassionate appointment and the qualifications required for such appointments. The court emphasized that compassionate appointments can only be given against Class III or Class IV posts and can be made only if vacancies exist. The court also highlighted that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by the sudden demise of the earning member of the family. The judgment quashed the previous order and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Bachelor of Engineering (Computer) graduate, sought appointment on the post of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer (Computer) on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a government teacher. The respondents offered him the post of LDC or Assistant Teacher, which he rejected, leading to a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was not justifiable as the family did not face financial crisis and the petitioner's elder brothers were gainfully employed. The court also held that the offer of appointment on the post of LDC or Assistant Teacher was against the rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility for compassionate appointment, the financial condition of the deceased's family, and the availability of suitable posts for compassionate appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compassionate appointments can only be given against Class III or Class IV posts, and vacancies must exist for such appointments. It also highlighted that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by the sudden demise of the earning member of the family.
Final Decision: The judgment quashed the previous order and dismissed the writ petition.
S.K. Keshote, J.-This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the Order dated 7.2001 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4258/1994.
2. The learned Single Judge under the impugned Order Ordered if the petitioner (respondent herein) is qualified as B.E. (Computer) and if any vacancy was available or is available, he is entitled to be considered against such post under the provisions of Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Rules, 1975’), and in case no such vacancy is available befitting his qualifications, the petitioner respondent shall he considered whenever such vacancy is made available but in no case the stand of the respondents (appellants herein) can be justified to say that their duty is over if a post of LDC is offered to such dependent which is not commensurate with his qualifications. The learned Single Judge further observed that a candidate with higher specialized qualification, is normally to be adjusted as per circular of the State Government on vacancy as per Rules befitting such qualification for which direct recruitment is permissible to the lower cadre in service to the candidate possessing such specialized qualification.
3. With the aforesaid observations the learned Single Judge concluded that the respondents appellants including the Department of Personnel to consider the case for offering the appointment to petitioner respondent commensurate with his qualifications if any such vacancy is available or whenever it becomes available.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner respondent died while in service of the State Government as Teacher, on 18.1991. The petitioner respondent qualified as Bachelor of Engineering (Computer) from Amravati University in the year 1990. The petitioner respondent applied for suitable post in accordance with his specialized qualification. The respondents appellants offered him the post of LDC or the Assistant Teacher which was not accepted by him and he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4258/1994, out of which this special appeal arises, praying therein for a direction to the respondents appellants to appoint him on the post of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer (Computer).
5. Thewrit petition was contested by the respondents appellants. Affidavit in support of the reply has been filed by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar.
6. A pleading has been made in para No. 5 of the reply to the writ petition that there is no post of Assistant Engineer (Computer) with the Panchayat Samiti, therefore the petitioner respondent cannot be given such employment. Further the father of the petitioner respondent was a Teacher and in pursuance of which the petitioner respondent was offered the post of Teacher to him. The other appointment so claimed cannot be given to the petitioner respondent.
7. It is again reiterated in para No. 6 of the reply to the writ petition that the post of Assistant Engineer (Computer) cannot be given to the petitioner respondent as the same is not with the Panchayat Samiti.
8. Inpara No. 9 of the reply to the writ petition it is urged that the petitioner respondent is not entitled for any such post which is above in rank then the post held by the deceased Government servant.
9. Third time it is reiterated that no such post is available in the respondent appellants’ Department which is claimed by the petitioner respondent. As per his entitlement the post was offered which is with the respondent appellants’ department.
10. The petitioner respondent filed rejoinder to the reply.
11. In para No. 6 of the rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition the respondent has not disputed that the post of Assistant Engineer (Computer) is not there in the Panchayat Samiti. Not only this the petitioner respondent has no
