Chattisgarh High Court
Vikas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 409 of 2021
Vikas S/o Late Heera Lal Netam, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Rampur
(Thathapur), Post Dharamgarh, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director Public Education, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabhirdham Chhattisgarh
4. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Bazar Charbhata,
District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
5. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Gaindpur, Block
Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
_______________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate
________________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri N. K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
02.12.2021
Heard Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 27.09.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 5206 of 2021, dismissing the writ
petition.
3. The father of the appellant who was working as a Lecturer
(Economics) in Government Higher Secondary School, Bazar Charbhata, died-
in-harness on 02.05.2021, leaving behind the mother of the appellant, the
appellant and three daughters. The appellant had filed an application for
compassionate appointment, which came to be rejected by an order passed on
26.06.2021 on the ground that he was not eligible for such appointment, as the
elder sister of the appellant was already in government employment.
4. Clause 6(A) of the Consolidated Revised Instructions regarding
compassionate appointment on the death of a government servant during
service, 2013 (for short, 'the Consolidated Revised Instructions, 2013'), as
translated to English, reads as follows :
"6 (A) In the family of the deceased married government
employee, if any other member of the family is already
in government service, then no other member of the
family will be eligible for compassionate appointment."
5. It is not disputed by Mr. Rao that the appellant's elder sister,
Ku. Jyoti Netam is working as a Lecturer (English) and posted at Government
High School, Ratga, Block Marwahi since 19.03.2021.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, having regard to Clause
6(A) of the Consolidated Revised Instructions, 2013, the learned Single Judge
held that rejection of the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment
cannot be held to be arbitrary or bad in law and accordingly, had dismissed the
writ petition.
7. Mr. Rao submits that the respondents were obliged to consider as
to whether family member of the deceased employee, who is in government
service, is providing any financial assistance to the family of the deceased.
According to him, his sister, who is in government employment, is not providing
any financial assistance and therefore, the appellant is entitled to be
considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
8. We are unable to accept this submission.
9. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana , reported in (1994) 4
SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 2, observed as follows:
"As a rule, appointments in the public services should be
made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications
and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor
the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules
for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions
carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the
dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his
family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 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
a member of such family a post much less a post for post
held by the deceased." (emphasis added)."
10. In State Bank of India & Another v. Somvir Singh , reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all
its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in
respect of any employment or office under the State on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent. It is so
well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that
appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception
carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public
services is to be made in a transparent and accountable
manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to
compete and participate in the selection process. Such
appointments are required to be made on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of
employees died in harness do not have any special or
additional claim to public services other than the one
conferred, if any, by the employer."
11. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Compassionate
appointment can be claimed only on the basis of scheme applicable for such
appointment. When the scheme itself provides that no appointment shall be
granted on compassionate appointment, if any of the family members is in
government service, no appointment can be claimed on the ground that the
family member in government service is not giving any financial assistance.
No obligation is cast upon the government under the scheme to find out as to
whether such employee is providing any financial assistance to the other
members of the family.
12. In view of what is discussed above, we find no good ground to
interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal
is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
