Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 503 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2005-04-08

S.S.NIJJAR, SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester on 23.6.1993 on compassionate grounds. His father had died on 2.1.1992, after having served the department for 27 years. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner was serving as Deputy Forest Ranger. Not satisfied with being appointed on the post of Forester, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for being appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. This representation was submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2000. Since the representation of the petitioner had not been decided, he filed C.W.P. No. 2461 of 2001. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.2.2001 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. The respondents thereafter accepted the representation of the petitioner and appointed him on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on 9.11.2001. The appointment of the petitioner was upto 29.2.2004 with stipulation that there is possibility of continuity in future. He was also put on probation for one year. This period of probation could be extended upto three years. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was, however, ordered to be cancelled on 23.8.2002. The petitioner again filed C.W.P. No. 14940 of 2002 complaining that the order of cancellation has been passed, without observing rules of natural justice. On 6.7.2004, this Court quashed the order dated 23.8.2002 with the observation that the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders, after observing rules of natural justice. Thereafter, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 3.9.2004. In this show cause notice, it has been clearly mentioned that the representation of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger was illegally accepted by the Conservator of Forests. He was, therefore, directed to show cause as to why the appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed the order dated 7/8.2.2005 directing the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. 3. Mr. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed the order dated 7/8.2.2005 directing the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. 3. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been illegally denied the appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner did not make any misrepresentation at the time he had made the claim for being appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner is, therefore, now entitled to continue on the aforesaid post. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, , the Supreme Court has clearly held as follows:- "2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased... 3. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased... 3. Unmindful of this legal position, some governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a manner of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible." 5. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it abundantly clear that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception and not the rule. The object is to help the family in distress. The purpose is not to give a job to a dependent of the deceased in lieu of the job held by the deceased. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died after serving the Forest Department for 27 years. He was holding the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. In view of the 27 years of service of the father of the petitioner, the family must be in receipt of family pension. Therefore, it could hardly be held to be a case of destitution or abject poverty. The Supreme Court has also stressed that appointment on compassionate grounds can not be given irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the. deceased. It has been nowhere pleaded by the petitioner that if the appointment had not been given to him on compassionate grounds, the family would not have been able to make two ends meet. Rather the claim of the petitioner is that he is not satisfied with having been appointed only on the post of Forester. He claims that he should be appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, the post which was held by his father. He made the representation for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, after working on the post of Forester, under protest for seven years. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we find no justification in permitting the petitioner to continue on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner has accepted in the writ petition that appointments on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger are made under the Punjab Forest Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1944. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we find no justification in permitting the petitioner to continue on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner has accepted in the writ petition that appointments on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger are made under the Punjab Forest Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1944. These rules have been implemented in the State of Haryana w.e.f. 17.4.1998 vide Government Notification No. GSR89/Const./Art. 309/98 dated 17.4.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under these rules for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. He, however, claims that he had been recommended for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger in the year 1993. But he had been wrongly appointed on the post of Forest Guard. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the qualifications laid down under the 1944 Rules would not be applicable in his case as the rules cannot have any retrospective effect. In our opinion, the submissions are wholly misconceived. Under the instructions issued by the State of Haryana in the month of May, 1995, which have been subsequently modified on 23.8.1995, it has been stipulated that the candidates seeking appointment on compassionate grounds can only be given appointment on the post which is one step below the post held by the deceased employee. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to be considered on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Forester could also, perhaps, not be justified in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra). However, since the petitioner has continued on the post of Forester now for a period of 12 years, it would be unjust to declare the same to be illegal at this stage. 6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. The petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. His claim has been rightly rejected by the respondents. Consequently, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.