Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1006 (PAT)

Laxmi Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-05

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2001
Judgment Nagendra Rai and R.S.Garg JJ. 1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 3-7-2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7024 of 2001) filed by him challenging the order dated 27-10-1999 rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, has been dismissed. 2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The father of the appellant, namely, Hajari Choudhary, was a Government employee and he died in harness on 5-1-1997. The appellant applied for his compassionate appointment and his claim was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the minimum requisite qualification i.e. Vlllth Pass as provided by Circular No. 3577 dated 25-4-1997 laying down minimum qualification for appointment on a Class IV post in the Government service. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon two judgments of a learned Single Judge of this Court, namely (i) in the case of Bivash Kumar V/s. State of Bihar 2000(1) PLJR 787 and (ii) in the case of Smt. Vigyanti Devi V/s. State of Bihar 2001(3) PLJR 138 , and submitted that the said circular has been declared ultra vires by this Court and in that view of the matter the rejection of the claim of the appellant for his appointment on compassionate ground on (he basis of the said circular is not sustainable in law. 4. The very object of appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family due to untimely death of the bread-earner. The law is well-settled that even for appointment on compassionate ground, the dependant has to fulfil the requisite qualification prescribed for the post. In other words, the only concession shown to the dependant of the deceased employee is that out of turn appointment is given without following the procedure consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right irrespective of the fact that minimum qualification prescribed for the post is not fulfilled by the candidate concerned. The law is equally well-settled that it is for the State Government to fix a qualification for a particular post depending upon the need of the service for which the appointment is to be made. The Court cannot lay down a policy prescribing qualification for a particular post. The law is equally well-settled that it is for the State Government to fix a qualification for a particular post depending upon the need of the service for which the appointment is to be made. The Court cannot lay down a policy prescribing qualification for a particular post. The Court will interfere only when it is found that the prescribed qualification is either arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In other words, if the qualification has no nexus with the nature of service for which the appointment has to be made, the Court may in the given case strike down the provision. 5. So far as the circular in question is concerned, which prescribed minimum qualification of Vlllth Pass for a Class IV post, taking into consideration the nature of the duty which Class IV employee is to perform, the same cannot be termed either as arbitrary or it has no nexus with the duty which a Class IV employee has to perform. The circular laying down the minimum qualification is neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. From a perusal of the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Bivash Kumar (supra), it appears that the petitioner of that case was engaged on daily wages and at that time the requisite qualification was only a knowledge of reading and writing without prescribing a minimum qualification and in that context, his Lordship held that laying down a specific qualification by circular dated 25th April, 2001, cannot be a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner of that case on Class IV post, who was engaged on daily wages prior to the coming into force of the aforesaid circular. Thus, the said case did not decide that the aforesaid circular laying down the minimum qualification of VIIIth Pass was ultra vires. 7. In the subsequent decision in the case of Smt. Vigyanti Dew (supra), the learned Single Judge held that aforesaid circular as ultra vires. No. reference of any case has been given therein. Thus, the said case did not decide that the aforesaid circular laying down the minimum qualification of VIIIth Pass was ultra vires. 7. In the subsequent decision in the case of Smt. Vigyanti Dew (supra), the learned Single Judge held that aforesaid circular as ultra vires. No. reference of any case has been given therein. In Bivash Kumar (supra), as we have already said that the appointment of the petitioner of that case on daily wages was made prior to coming into force of the said circular and in that context, it was held that the aforesaid circular laying down a specific qualification at the time of regularisation of his service was not applicable and as such was declared ultra vires. 8. Be that as it may, as the learned Single Judge in Smt. Vigyanti Devi (supra) has said that he has declared the aforesaid circular ultra vires, we make it clear that we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the circular is valid one and it does not contravene the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India so far as it relates to laying down a minimum qualification. So far as the circular laying down the maximum qualification is concerned, that question is not involved in this case so we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the same. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.