Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5963 of 2012 Rajesh Kumar Pandey ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Dy. Commissioner-cum-Chairman of District Compassionate Committee, Giridih. 5. District Education Officer, Giridih. ………. Respondents. With W.P.(S). No. 6302 of 2012 ---------- Deepak Kumar ………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Dy. Commissioner-cum-Chairman of District Compassionate Committee, Giridih. 5. District Education Officer, Giridih. ………. Respondents. CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
----------- :Mr. Subodh Kr. Pandey, Advocate :Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II Mrs. Shrestha Mehta, AC to SC-II (In W.P.S. No. 5963 of 2012) Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III Mr. Shashank Saurav, AC to GP-III (In W.P.S. No. 6302 of 2012) ---------- 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to appoint them to the post of Primary Teacher as 2 similarly situated persons have been appointed on compassionate ground to the said post. 3. As per the factual matrix, the fathers of the petitioners who were working as teachers in government schools died in harness. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted applications for their appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Primary Teachers. However, the respondent- authorities, vide office order dated 11.08.2007, appointed the petitioner (in W.P.S. No. 5963 of 2012) and vide office order dated 08.08.2009 (in W.PS. No. 6302 of 2012) to the post of Clerk. It is the case of the petitioners that on the date of consideration, the competent authority has recommended the names of several persons including petitioners, for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers but inspite of the same the petitioners were not appointed on the said post rather, they were appointed to the post of Clerk. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations before respondent- authorities for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers but the same were rejected by the District Compassionate Committee. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously argues that action of the respondents is arbitrary, malafide and violative of principle of natural justice inasmuch as, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed to the post of Primary Teachers in view of the orders and circulars issued by the State Government but contrary to the same, they have been appointed to the post of Clerk. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondents is totally based on pick and choose method since similarly situated persons have been given appointment to the post of Primary Teacher but in case of the petitioners, they have been denied the said benefits and arbitrarily and illegally, appointed to the post of Clerk. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the cases of 3 petitioners and appoint them to the post Primary Teachers as has been done by them in cases of similarly situated persons. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fathers of the petitioners were working as teachers in different government schools and they died in harness and thereafter, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Clerks and in pursuance to which, they joined services as Clerks and since then, they are discharging their duties. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed representations before the respondent-authorities praying therein to consider their cases for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers. The matter was referred to the District Appointment Committee, which in its meeting held on 11.11.2011 rejected the claim of the petitioners in light of the norms and rules of the State Govt. contained in memo No.13293 dated 05.10.1991. Learned counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioners that similarly situated persons have been given appointment to the post of Primary Teacher is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as the case of the petitioners are not similar to the case of Bibha Kumari, since the appointment of the petitioners were given according to their educational qualification and other criteria available before the Committee on the date of consideration of their cases. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have accepted the appointment letters and given their joining to the post of Clerk and have been discharging their duties and thereafter, in the year 2011 the petitioners submitted their representations for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers and on this score alone, the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed as time barred and further on the ground that compassionate appointment is given to provide succour to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds themsevles in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner and no one can claim double benefits against the appointment made on compassionate ground on the decision of the District Compassionate 4 Appointment Committee, also on the ground that they have accepted the appointment letters and submitted their joining to the post of Clerk. 6. Having heard the parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petitions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground since their fathers, who were working as Govt. Teachers have died in harness. From perusal of the records, it appears that the District Appointment Committee has considered the cases of the petitioners and on the basis of educational qualification and other criteria, issued direction for appointment of the petitioners on compassionate ground to the post of Clerk and thereafter, appointment letters were issued to them and petitioners accepted the same and submitted their joining to the post of Clerk and since then they were discharging their duties. Subsequently, in the year 2011, they submitted representation before the respondent-authorities for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers in light to the appointment given to the similarly situated persons. The matter was considered by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 11.11.2011, in which the claim of the petitioners were rejected in light of the prevalent circulars and orders of the State Government contained in memo No. 13293 dated 05.10.1991. Para-9(k) of the said Instruction provides that once a person is appointed on compassionate ground, such appointment will be termed as regular appointment and the same cannot be changed to another category of post by giving double benefits of compassionate appointment. 7. Further, from perusal of letter contained in memo No. 3428 dated 24.12.2004, issued by the Joint Secretary, HRD Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, it is crystal clear that appointment to the post of Primary Teachers are being made by recruitment process conducted by JPSC and as such, no appointment can be given to the said post by way of compassionate appointment. Hence, in light of the said letter, rightly the petitioners were given appointment to the post of Clerk Grade-III by the 5 District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Giridih and there is no illegality in the same. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:- “16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.” 9. As s sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, there is no merit in the instant writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/ K