IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. B. Misra, J.
AJAY KUMAR SHEVDY - Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FACE, CENTRAL RAILWAY AND - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 36969 Of 1995
Decided On : 10/20/2003
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - Employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the rules and the Court cannot take a view as to make it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. An employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the rules and the Court cannot take a view as to make it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Puneet Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
( 2 ) IN this petition prayer has been made for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Class-Ill employee on the compassionate ground and for issuance of any suitable writ order or direction at the pleasure of the Court.
( 3 ) IT appears that the father of the petitioner namely J. G. Shevdey while working as Head constable No. 410 in Railway Protection Force, Jabalpur Division and at the relevant time posted at Chibki, Allahabad died on 20. 2. 1989 leaving behind the petitioner and two sisters (already married) as the legal heirs. The petitioner made an application before the Divisional security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) for getting appointment as Sub-Inspector on the compassionate ground. A letter dated 12. 5. 1989 was issued to the petitioner informing that the petitioner cannot be recruited as Sub-Inspector on compassionate ground, therefore, he was indicated to apply to the post of Class-Ill along with declaration of no objection preferred by his sisters. The petitioner made an application for the employment in Class-Ill category. He was also issued letter on 28. 11. 1989 for presenting himself before the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway Bombay b. T. for interview on 12. 12. 1989 at 10. 30 a. m. However, on doing so, the petitioner was never informed the out come of the interview, again petitioner was interviewed on 31. 1. 1990. However, on 16. 7. 1991 the Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, the respondent No. 1 issued an appointment letter to the petitioner as Class-IV employee in Bhopal division. Subsequent letter on 16. 1. 1990 and 16. 7. 1991 were issued by the relevant officers. Similar letters were also issued on 7. 1. 1992 and 27. 7. 1992.
( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit it was not denied that the petitioner was not found suitable for Class-Ill posts. According to Para 10 of the counter affidavit the case was referred to DRM/jbp by the respondent No. 2 for appointment in Class-IV job along with all the documents, vide letter No. R. I. /jbp, dated 10. 1. 1989. The petitioner was called for screening on 30. 1. 1990 by the drm/jabalpur and he was found suitable for the psot of Hospital attendant by the Screening committee consisting three officers nominated by DRM/jbalpur. Accordingly he was directed for requisite medical examination and vide certificate No. 272145, dated 26. 2. 1990 issued by medical Superintendent, Jabadlpur, the petitioner was found fit for the post of Class-IV. The petitioner was given intimation by the respondent No. 2 regarding his result and sanction of competent authority for appointment in Class-IV post i. e. , Hospital attendant, same letter is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the petition.
( 5 ) IT has also been indicated at the Bar that the petitioner has become now 37 years and the petitioner cannot be given employment at his stage as the need of bringing the petitioner and his family on the requirement of the family circumstances does not prevail.
( 6 ) THE object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. This is because as a rule appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and no other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly an all cases of public appointment, there are certain exceptions carried out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases out of humanitarian consideration taking into
Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar
Director of Education Secondary v. Pushpendra Kumar
State of Haryana v. Chandra Narain Verma
State of Rajasthan v. Umrad Singh
State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali
Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh
State of Manipur v. A. Ongbi Memcha Devi
Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan S.R.T.C.
State of Haryana v. Dhan Singh
Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar
Life Insurance Corporation v. Asha Ram Chandra Ambedkar
Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and Ors.
State of Haryana amnd Ors. v. Vipin Kumar
Bibi Sayeeda v. State of Bihar
Colour-Chem. Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar
S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta
Daily Pratap v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Dinkar Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors.
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. MM Suri and Associates (P) Ltd.
Cochin Dock Labour Board v. Leenamma Samuel and Ors.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Pochaiah and Anr.
REFERRED TO : Umesh Chandra Nagpal v. State of Haryana
S. Mohan v. Government of T.N.
Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao
Jethi Devi v. Bhakra Beas Management Board
State of Manipur v. A. Ongbi Memcha Devi
Hindusthan Aeronautes Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thimmalai
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India and Ors.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board v. Chhathu Ram
Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authoity of India and Ors.
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi
Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya Dahankar and Anr.
Durga Oil Company and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur
Vaijanath and Ors. v. Guramma and Anr.
Regional Director. E.S.I. Corporation v. Ramanuja Match Industries
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.