THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & Ors. v. PREMLATA

HELD : 1.1 As per the law laid down by Supreme court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and 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 dependants 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. [Paras 9, 10][606-E-F; 608-F-H; 609-A-B]

1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court in the present case has interpreted Rule 5 of Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 and has held that ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate irrespective of the post held by the deceased employee. The aforesaid interpretation by the Division Bench of the High Court is just opposite to the object and purpose of granting the appointment on compassionate ground. ‘Suitable post’ has to be considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is required to be considered, considering the post held by the deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA 599 be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee, otherwise there shall be no difference/distinction between the appointment on compassionate ground and the regular appointment. In a given case it may happen that the dependent of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of Class-II or Class-I post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade-IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner. [Para 10.2][609-C-G]

1.3 In the present case initially the respondent applied for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Operator in Police Radio Department. The same was not accepted by the Department and rightly not accepted on the ground that she was not fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Operator. Thereafter the respondent again applied for appointment on the compassionate ground on the post of Workshop Hand. The case of the respondent was considered, however, she failed in the physical test examination, which was required as per the relevant recruitment rules of 2005. Therefore, thereafter she was offered appointment on compassionate ground as Messenger which was equivalent to the post held by the deceased employee. Therefore appellants were justified in offering the appointment to the respondent on the post of Messenger. However, the respondent refused the appointment on such post. The Division Bench of the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 and in observing and holding that the ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Dying -In - Harness Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate and the appointment on compassionate ground is to be offered considering the educational qualification of the dependent. Such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. A B C D E F G H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside. Consequently the writ petition preferred by the respondent before the learned Single Judge being Writ Petition No.16009 of 2018 stands dismissed and the order passed by the Single Judge dated 31.07.2018 dismissing the writ stands restored. No costs. [Paras 10.3, 11 and 12][609-H; 610-A-F] Phoolwati (Smt) vs Union Of India and Others (1991) Supp 2 SCC 689: (1991) AIR 469; Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. vs. V. Somashree Decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021; State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR 432 – relied on.