Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1189
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
Ram Kishore Gupta -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1945(SS) of 2010
Decided On : 06-04-2010
J.N.Verma, S.C., V.S.Tripathi, Anita Agarwal, V.K.Singh
Once an appointment has been made on compassionate grounds, no further appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Rules could be made.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Appointment on Compassionate Ground - Provisions for Compassionate Appointment - Summary of Acts and Sections: AIR 1989 SC 1976, (1994) 4 SCC 448, (1994) 6 SCC 560, (1998) 5 SCC 192, JT. 2000(10) SC, Writ Petition No.1637(SS) of 1991 - The court discussed the provisions for compassionate appointment and highlighted the object and genesis of compassionate appointment, as well as various judgments by the Supreme Court on the matter. The court emphasized that once an appointment has been made on compassionate grounds, no further appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Rules could be made.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground after completing his graduation, which was rejected by the opposite party. The petitioner challenged the rejection order, citing a previous judgment in a similar case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's request for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground was not illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory. The court also held that the previous judgment cited by the petitioner was not a binding precedent and could not be relied upon.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground after completing his graduation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once an appointment has been made on compassionate grounds, no further appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Rules could be made.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the rejection of the petitioner's request for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground was not illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory.
Heard Sri V.K. Singh holding brief of Smt. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel and Sri J.N. Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the opposite party no. 3, the Director Education(Basic), Uttar Pradesh, Nishatganj, Lucknow contained in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.
3. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner's father was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School, Husainganj Kalan, Jagdishpur, Sultanpur died during the tenure of his services on 25.06.2001, so an application was moved by the petitioner for considering his case for compassionate appointment.
4. By order dated 05.09.2001, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on the post of Anuchar(Peon) in the institution in question considering his qualification which he possessed at that time i.e. High School.
5. He further submits that after joining on the post of Anuchar (Peon), petitioner completed his graduation(B.A.) from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh Vishwavidyalaya, Faizabad(U.P.) with due persmission of respondent. Accordingly, after completing his graduation, the petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned authorities for appointing him on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground taking into account his qualification which he possess. However, no appointment order was issued but the petitioner was assigned the work as Assistant Teacher.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the verbal request of the petitioner for appointing him on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground was not considered so a representation was moved by him praying therein that the case of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground may be considered again taking into account the qualification(graduation) possessed by him which is the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, the said representation was rejected by means of order dated 11.12.2009 passed by opposite party no. 3(Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sultanpur) on the ground that in view of Clause-5 of the Government Order dated 4th September, 2008, if a person is appointed on compassionate grounds then he can not be appointed again on a higher post taking into consideration his qualification hence, the present writ petition has been filed thereby challenging the order dated 11.12.2009 on the ground that the same is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, passed without application of mind and in contravention to the judgment and order dated 04.05.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.1637(SS) of 1991(Vijay Shankar Srivastava Vs. District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow).
7. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction be issued to the opposite parties to make the payment of salary etc. as applicable on the post of Assistant Teacher to the petitioner with effect from the date of working on the said post.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties present today and perused the record.
9. The object and the genesis of compassionate appointment is on account of "immediate hardship" and to mitigate 'distress' in the family of a deceased employee. It is not planned and cannot be delayed or postponed, as that will frustrate the very object of the compassionate appointment.
10. Further, the provisions pertains to compassionate appointment has been dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976, however thereafter the approach pertaining to the provisions for compassionate appointment has undergone major change.
11. In the case of State of State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448, the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal of the State he
