Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2477 (ALL)

Shobhit Kumar Mallik v. State Of U. P.

2019-11-05

AJAY BHANOT, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Special Appeal is in respect of a judgment and order dated 24th September, 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 14699 of 2019 (Shobhit Kumar Mallik v. State of U.P. & Anr.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition for reasons stated therein. 2. The appellant before us is the writ petitioner. 3. We notice that the appellant/writ petitioner essentially moved the writ Court for the purpose of issuance of a mandatory direction upon the concerned respondent authority to consider his representation dated 27th December, 2013, for grant of compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father who died during service on 13th January, 2003, while working as an Assistant Teacher in Basic Parishadiya Vidyalaya Badhapur, Bijnor. 4. The records reveal that the petitioner had made even earlier representations in 2008 and 2011. The learned Single Judge while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition passed the following order :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of petitioner died during service from the post of Assistant Teacher in Basic Parishadiya Vidyalaya Badhapur, Bijnor after 30 years continuous service. He further submitted that petitioner moved representations dated 21.6.2008 and 25.7.2011 and 27.12.2013 for his appointment on compassionate ground which has not been decided till date. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in light of judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; Haryana State Electricity Board and another Versus Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 JT 332 ; Director of Education (Secondary) and another Versus Pushpendra Kumar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 192 ; Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Bihar and others, (2000) 10 JT 156 ; State of Manipur Versus Mohd. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511 ; National Institute of Technology and others Versus Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 ; State Bank of India and others Versus Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 3 JT 35 ; General Manager State Bank of India and others Versus Anju Jain,2008 11 Scale 347; and, Jitendra Vs. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511 ; National Institute of Technology and others Versus Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 ; State Bank of India and others Versus Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 3 JT 35 ; General Manager State Bank of India and others Versus Anju Jain,2008 11 Scale 347; and, Jitendra Vs. CAT, Allahabad and others, (2008) 2 ESC 769 , the petitioner is not entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground after 30 years from the date of death of his father. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by Apex Court in the cases cited above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." 5. The facts of the instant case reveal that the writ petitioner's father died on 13th January, 2003, while he was a minor. As such, he could not be considered for being appointed on compassionate ground, being a minor. The petitioner attained majority after eight years, i.e. in the year, 2011. He filed the writ petition in the year 2019 seeking intervention of the writ Court for the purpose of issuance of mandatory direction upon concerned respondent authority to consider his pending representation dated 27th December, 2013. The two questions here are as follows:- (a) Whether such mandatory direction, as prayed for, can at all be issued by the writ Court in the facts of the instant case, and (b) Whether the writ petitioner is even entitled to be considered for being appointed on compassionate ground having been minor at the material point of time, i.e. at the time of death of his father. 6. The answer to both the issues are in the negative. 7. A representation may be considered by a competent authority only if it is so provided under any statutory provision and the Court should not pass a mandatory order directing any authority to decide a representation for the reason that many a time unwarranted or time - barred claims are sought to be entertained before the authority. In this context, one may take notice of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147. 8. It is well settled that an applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group / class of post as a matter of right. In this context, one may take notice of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147. 8. It is well settled that an applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group / class of post as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground too cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. As a rule, public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. In this context, we may take notice of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Of India & Anr vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr, (2012) AIR SC 2294. 9. In the facts of the instant case, the appellant / writ petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father in the year 2003. He could not have possibly made a claim for being appointed on compassionate ground, being a minor at the material point of time. As such, the writ petitioner was not even entitled to be considered for being appointed on compassionate ground. 10. Considering the above, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Special Appeal, particularly in the absence of any palpable infirmities or perversities. The impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 10. Considering the above, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Special Appeal, particularly in the absence of any palpable infirmities or perversities. The impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 24th September, 2019. 11. For reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.