Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
R.V. Raveendran, Shantanu Kemkar, J.
Pushpendra Singh Baghel
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 4542 of 2004
Decided On: 24.02.2005
Compassionate Appointment - Public Interest Litigation - Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the appointment of the third respondent as a Commercial Tax Officer on compassionate grounds, challenging its legality and sustainability. The court referred to the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966 and the guidelines for compassionate appointments. The court highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding compassionate appointments and emphasized that compassionate appointment to a Class II post is impermissible. The court also discussed the interpretation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules and its applicability to the appointment. The judgment emphasized the need to adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity in employment and the prohibition of discriminatory appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of the third respondent as a Commercial Tax Officer on compassionate grounds. The petitioner contended that the appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and there was no need for compassionate appointment to a Class II post. The State Government defended the appointment, citing the exigencies of the service and the approval granted by the M.P. State Public Service Commission. The court considered the guidelines for compassionate appointments and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the third respondent to a Class II post on compassionate grounds was not valid and sustainable. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment to a Class II post is impermissible and discussed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding compassionate appointments. The court also ruled that the appointment could not be justified under Rule 7(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966.
Issues: The issues before the court included the validity and sustainability of the appointment of the third respondent on compassionate grounds, the applicability of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, the maintainability of the PIL in a service matter, and the possibility of hostile discrimination in the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointment to a Class II post is impermissible and discussed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding compassionate appointments. The court also ruled that the appointment could not be justified under Rule 7(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity in employment and the prohibition of discriminatory appointments.
Final Decision: The court quashed the appointment of the third respondent as a Commercial Tax Officer (Class II) and recommended that appropriate compensation should be offered to the third respondent. The court also recommended that the State Government should provide an appointment in a Class III post to one member of the family of the deceased. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, and the security deposit by the petitioner was to be refunded.
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.
1. Many a time, the Courts are required to take inconvenient decisions, contrary to public opinion and personal sympathies. This is one such case. In this PIL, the appointment of third respondent, as a Commercial Tax Officer, on compassionate grounds, is challenged as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and prejudicial to public interest.
2. Third respondent is the widow of one R. K. Jain. The said R. K. Jain was working as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Bhopal. He had put in about 25 years of service. The department considered him to be an excellent officer. On 14-7-2004, he was arrested by the Police Officers of the Special Police Establishment attached to Lokayukt, Madhya Pradesh, allegedly while accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from one Vinod Chhajad, Tax Practitioner. It would appear that he was detained and tortured in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal. While in such Police custody, he was rushed to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he died. Postmortem examination disclosed the cause of his death as Asphyxia. The postmortem report also revealed fracture of ribs and other injuries on his body. It would appear that the State directed the Crime Investigation Department to inquire into circumstances leading to the death of R. K: Jain. According to the State, the investigation prima-facie revealed the involvement of M. S. Nain, the then In-charge Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, in the death of R.K. Jain.
3. His unnatural death on account of injuries sustained in custodial violence caused lot of anger and resentment amongst the public and also sparked an agitation at Bhopal demanding the arrest and prosecution of Shri M. S. Nain, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Shri B. P. Singh, Inspector, officers of the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt who were allegedly responsible for the death of R. K. Jain. It is also stated that a demand was made by some elected representatives of people as also by the colleagues of R. K. Jain in the Commercial Tax Department that appropriate compensation and relief be provided to the widow of late R. K. Jain. One of the suggestions was that the third respondent (wife of deceased R. K. Jain) should be provided a suitable appointment.
4. Late R. K. Jain left him surviving his widow (third respondent), two daughters and a son. Third respondent submitted an application on 23-7-2004 to the State Government (Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department) seeking compassionate appointment on a Class II post. Along with the said application, she filed copies of testimonials to show that she possessed the requisite educational qualification for such post. Having regard to unfortunate circumstances in which her husband died and resultant public agitation, the State Government wanted to consider her case as a special case with compassion and sympathy. Therefore, after consulting the M.P. Public Service Commission (as per letter dated 26-7-2004) and securing its consent (as per reply dated 28-7-2004), the State Government issued an order dated 23-8-2004 appointing third respondent as Commercial Tax Officer (a Class II Post) on compassionate grounds on probation for a period of two years by relaxing the relevant recruitment Rules. It is stated that in pursuance of it, third respondent joined duty and is presently working as Commercial Tax Officer at Bhopal.
5. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer at Jabalpur, has filed this petition on 8-11-2004 by way of Public Interest Litigation for quashing the compassionate appointment order dated 23-8-2004 appointing third respondent as Commercial Tax Officer. He has also sought a direction to Lokayukt to complete investigation in Crime No. 97/2004 against late R. K. Jain and place the relevant material before the Court. The petitioner contends that the State Government has no power to make appointment to a class II Gazetted post, on compassionate grounds. It is
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
