Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Sunil Arora – Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12812 of 2011
Decided On : 22-12-2016
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - RAJASTHAN COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENT OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RULES 1996 - RULE 7(1) - AMENDMENT IN RECRUITMENT RULES - EFFECT ON PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, an Office Assistant in a Government Senior Secondary School, passed away while in service. Petitioner, having passed the Higher Secondary Examination, applied for compassionate appointment as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servants Rules 1996 (Rules of 1996). However, the application was returned as the petitioner did not have the requisite educational qualification of Senior Secondary pass at the time of consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a mere application for compassionate appointment confers no vested right on the applicant and that the employer is entitled to alter the eligibility for all appointments, including compassionate appointments, as per its policy. The court further held that all pending applications for compassionate appointments have to be considered on the basis of the prescribed eligibility as on the date of appointment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment as LDC could have been considered with reference to the amendments to the recruitment rules effective 05.07.2010, which prescribed a higher educational qualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Anr. Versus Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, which held that compassionate appointments are a concession and not a right, and that the employer can modify or even wind up the scheme for such appointments at any time. The court also held that the petitioner did not have the requisite educational qualification for the post of LDC as prescribed by the concerned recruitment rules on the day he was to be appointed and thus had no vested right to be considered under the unamended recruitment rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Alok Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner seeks appointment as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servants Rules 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996').
2. The case set up is that Kailash Chandra Arora the petitioner's father expired while working on the post of Office Assistant in the Government Senior Secondary School Jawaja, Ajmer on 05.10.2009. On 16.11.2009, the petitioner earlier having passed the Higher Secondary Examination, as the son of the deceased Kailash Chandra Arora fancying himself as eligible for the post of LDC filed an application for appointment duly supported by affidavits of no objection from other family members of the deceased. The appointment was not yet forthcoming causing financial suffering to the family of the deceased Kailash Chandra Arora and defeating the salutary purpose of the Rules of 1996. Direction for appointment as LDC has been sought.
3. In defence, the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not have the requisite educational and technical qualification to be appointed LDC. It was submitted that in terms of the amendments in the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1999, The Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 and in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ministerial Service and Subordinate Service Rules and Regulations 1999 effective 05.07.2010, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was senior secondary from the Board of Secondary Education or its equivalent education qualification alongwith the requisite certificate in the prescribed computer course. The petitioner at the time of consideration of his application had not passed the senior secondary examination and on this count alone, was ineligible for the post of LDC. It was pointed out that the Rules of 1996 mandate that all appointments thereunder would be subject to requisite prescribed qualification for the post under the concerned service rules at the time of the appointment. And the petitioner's own case is that he had passed at the relevant time only the Higher secondary examination (Class XI) and not the Senior secondary Examination (Class XII) which was the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of LDC with the respondent-State. In the circumstances, the petitioner's application for appointment as LDC on compassionate ground was returned, and rightly so, submitted the Additional Government Counsel.
4. Heard. Considered.
5. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had applied for the appointment under the Rules of 1996 on or about 16.11.2009. But it is equally true that all governing Rules for appointment of LDCs effective the amendment of 05.07.2010, provided that the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was senior secondary (Class XII) aside of proficiency in computers evidenced by passing the prescribed computer course. The petitioner admittedly did not have the requisite educational qualification of Senior Secondary pass at the time of the consideration of his application for appointment as LDC and could not be so appointed.
6. The only issue which remains for consideration is as to whether having applied for appointment of the post of LDC under the Rules of 1996 on 16.11.2009, the petitioner's candidature for such appointment could have been considered with reference to the amendments to the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1999, The Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 and in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ministerial Service and Subordinate Service Rules and Regulations 1999 effective 05.07.2010.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 8092/2011) decided on 10.09.2013 and on the case of Chakrawati Singh versus Marwar Ganganagar Bikaner Gramin Bank, 2009 SCC OnLine Raj. 3297, to conte
AI
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
