Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Vikrant Sengar - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 17732 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial employment and disciplinary proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of dismissal and appellate authority's findings (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. confirmed facts of employment and dismissal (Para 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. nature and purpose of compassionate appointments (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. legal framework around compassionate appointments and compliance (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. importance of immediacy in claims for compassionate appointments (Para 35 , 36 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. fraud in compassionate appointments and legal repercussions (Para 39 , 42 , 44 , 45) |
| 8. procedural adherence and natural justice in dismissal (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 9. conclusion of the court regarding the legitimacy and procedural correctness of the dismissal. (Para 61 , 62) |
| 10. conclusion and directions for institutional measures (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
| I | Introduction | ||||||
| II | Events leading upto the impugned orders | ||||||
| III | Impugned Orders
| ||||||
| IV | Facts established from the record | ||||||
| V | Questions for consideration | ||||||
| VI | Compassionate Appointments
| ||||||
| VII | (A) Impugned order/Termination/Cancellation of appointment in light of statutory provisions and case laws (B) Abuse of Compassionate Appointments | ||||||
| VIII | Procedure adopted while passing impugned orders: Natural Justice | ||||||
| IX | Conclusions and Directions |
I. Introduction:
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dismissing him from service. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 18.09.2022 passed by the appellate authority/Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against order of dismissal.
II. Events leading upto impugned orders:
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 04.10.1990 under the Dying in Harness Rules. A chargesheet was drawn up against the petitioner on 12.10.2020 which caused the initiation of departmental proceedings against him.
4. The gravamen of the charges in the said chargesheet were as under: As per the first charge the petitioner was working as a DSL Cleaner in the Indian Railways, and later he was removed from service. The petitioner obtained an appointment as a teacher under the Dying in Harness Rules in the Basic Shiksha department by concealing the said facts of his service and removal from Railways. According to the second charge, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on 04.10.1990 after the period of limitation had expired. The third charge alleges acts of financial irregularities and disobedience of the orders of superior authority.
5. The chargesheet records that various documents which were proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner were being appended thereto.
6. The petitioner submitted a response to the chargesheet on 02.11.2020. In the aforesaid reply the petitioner did not tender his defence or refutation of the charges against him. The petitioner never disputed the recitals in the chargesheet that the documents appended to the chargesheet were served upon him. The petitioner simply demanded copies of some documents relating to his appointment and initiation of the enquiry against him. By order dated 12.11.2020 the documents which depicted the petitioner’s appointment as DSL Cleaner and removal from service of the railways were duly provided to him alone with other relevant documents.
7. The petitioner furnished another reply on 24.12.2020, wherein he demanded certain documents pertaining to allegations of financial irregularities. It needs to be emphasized in the aforesaid reply that the petitioner did not dispute his appointment and termination from the Indian Railw
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to the merit-based recruitment process and must strictly adhere to established statutory criteria, with no vested rights for applicants.
The appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be terminated based on unsupported allegations of concealment, particularly after valid scrutiny and significant time lapse since the appointment.
(1) Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right – A person, claiming appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to deceased person and eligibility for appoin....
Compassionate appointment is a concession and should be restricted to genuinely deserving families, with strict scrutiny of various parameters.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and not a matter of right, and should be considered within a specific time frame as per the prevailing policy at the time of consideration.
Compassionate appointments must comply strictly with applicable rules, and delays in application negate claims for such appointments, emphasizing they are exceptions, not rights.
Grant of compassionate appointment - Purpose of compassionate grounds appointments to tide over sudden crisis resulting from death of earner in a family. However reservation of a vacancy to enable su....
Point of Law : As more than 30 years have passed since the father of the petitioner/appellant had expired, neither there is any useful purpose to issue any positive direction, nor the facts of the ca....
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
