HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD COURT NO.39 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.43203 OF 2011 Suresh Kumar. ....Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others. .....Respondents Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner's father was the employee in the police department, who expired on 01.01.1999. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment. The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. Since the petitioner was not eligible for the post Sub-Inspector, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on the post of Constable, which the petitioner has accepted and joined the post of Constable. It appears that the eligibility age of the post of Sub-Inspector was 21 years, which the petitioner could not fulfil and therefore, the offer for the post of Sub-Inspector has not been accepted. Later on when the petitioner attained the age of 21 years, the petitioner moved an application that now he is eligible for the post of Sub-Inspector and the same may be considered.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that once the petitioner accepted the compassionate appointment on the post of Constable, his right for the higher post is consummated and ceases to exist and his appointment on the higher post can not be accepted. Reliance is placed on the various decisions of the Apex Court.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the decisions cited by both the sides.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, reported in 1995 SCC (L&S), 10. The Apex Court held as follows:
"Admittedly the respondent's father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16.3.1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion". Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merley because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case."
In the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad and others Vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum, reported in (2008) 1 SCC (L&S), 769. The Apex Court held as follows:
5. In the present case, the additional monetary benefit has been given to the widow apart from the benefits available to the widow after the death of her husband to get over the financial constraints on account of sudden death of her husband and, thus, as a matter of right, she was not entitled to claim the compassionate appointment and that too when it had not been brought to the notice of the Court that any vacancy was available where the respondent could have been accommodated by giving her a compassionate appointment. That apart, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed an error in modifying the direction of the Single Judge by directing the Corporation to appoint the respondent when no appeal was preferred by the respondent challenging order of the Single Judge."
In the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L&S), 224. The Apex Court held as follows:
"11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints.
12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service."
In the case of I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (L&S), 417. The Apex Court held as follows:
"12. Furthermore, the respondent accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor. A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the petitioner came within the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is vested with such a power."
In view of the above, the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court, it is settled that once the right to get the compassionate appointment is exhausted after accepting the appointment on one post, the person has no right to claim any higher post on compassionate appointment.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Dt.05.08.2011.
R./