Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1402 (HP)

Taro Devi v. Union of India

2015-10-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The writ petition was de-linked from the group of cases, the lead case of which was CWP No.9094 of 2013, and was taken up separately. 2. By the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for grant of employment on compassionate ground. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that one Shri Hira Lal, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was in the employment of the respondents, who died on 17th February, 2007, while in service. Petitioner No.1, being the widow of the deceased-employee, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Her case was considered and was approved for appointment on compassionate ground, subject to the condition that she would have to pass her matriculation examination within two years. However, she failed to do so and ultimately, her case was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner No.2, being the daughter of the deceased-employee, applied in February, 2009 for being appointed on compassionate ground. Her case was also rejected by the respondents on the ground that since the case of petitioner No.1 already stands rejected, therefore, case of petitioner No.2 cannot be considered for the second time. 4. The said order was questioned by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), by way of Original Application No.483/HP/2009, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15th April, 2010. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Tribunal by the medium of the instant appeal. 6. Respondents have filed the joint reply, in which it has been pleaded that since petitioner No.1 was not fulfilling the requisite qualification, therefore, her case for appointment was placed before the Circle Selection Committee for relaxation. The said Committee rejected the case of the petitioner on 27th June, 2008 and the petitioner was informed accordingly vide letter dated 4th July, 2008. 7. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and has rightly made discussion in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, which are reproduced below: “6. It is well settled that appointment to any post is to be made from the open market through selection on merits under the relevant rules. 8. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and has rightly made discussion in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, which are reproduced below: “6. It is well settled that appointment to any post is to be made from the open market through selection on merits under the relevant rules. Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to this rule which is provided only to help the family to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of unexpected death while in service. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis. The Govt. or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In this regard, case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and other, JT 1994(3) SC 525 is cited as an example. 7. It will also be relevant to quote Clauses 2 and 3 of the instructions dated 5.5.2003 issued by Govt. of India which are quoted below:- “2. It has, therefore, been decided that if compassionate appointment to genuine and deserving cases, as per the guidelines contained in the above OMs is not possible in the first year, due to non-availability of regular vacancy, the prescribed committee may review such cases to evaluate the financial conditions of the family to arrive at a decision as to whether a particular case warrant extension by one more year, for consideration for compassionate appointment by the Committee, subject to availability of a clear vacancy within the prescribed 5% quota. If on scrutiny by the Committee, a case is considered to be deserving, the name of such a persons can be continued for consideration for one more year. 3. the maximum time a person’s name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. 3. the maximum time a person’s name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment, is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed and will not be considered again.” 8. From the pleadings, it is evident that the case of applicant No.1 was considered by the Circle Selection Committee. Since the Applicant No.1 did not possess the required minimum educational qualification i.e. Matriculation for appointment as GDSBPM, her case was rejected by the Committee on 27.6.2008 and she was informed vide letter dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure R/1). Since the Committee had already rejected the case of Applicant No.1, the case of Applicant No.2 was not considered.” 9. A reference may also be made to the latest decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat and another vs. Chitraben, 2015 AIR SCW 4305, wherein also the applicant was seeking appointment on compassionate grounds but was not fulfilling the minimum educational qualification, as prescribed under the Rules governing the field. It was held by the Apex Court that the case of the applicant was rightly rejected for compassionate appointment since the applicant was not fulfilling the minimum requisite educational qualification as stipulated in the Rules governing the field. 10. Having said so, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, along with pending CMPs, if any.