Ranjod Singh vs Lady Shri Ram College For Women & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 201 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C.) No. 4001/2008

                              Judgment Reserved on: 12.01.2010
%                             Judgment Delivered on: 15.01.2010


#     RANJOD SINGH
                                                                ..... Petitioner

!                        Through: Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                    Versus

$     LADY SHRI RAM COLLEGE FOR WOMEN & OTHERS
                                           .....Respondents

^                        Through: Mr.Navin Chawla for respondent No. 1.
                                     Mr. Amitesh Kumar for respondent
                                     No. 2.
                                     Mr. Mohinder Rupal for respondent
                                     No. 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) Whether a person can claim as of right, compassionate

appointment to a particular post is the only question that requires

consideration in this case.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the above question

are that the father of the petitioner prior to his death was working as a

Senior Assistant in Lady Shri Ram College for Women under Delhi

University. After he had worked for about 24 years in the College, he

gave a notice on 11.01.2005 for seeking voluntary retirement but

unfortunately before expiry of the notice period, he died in harness on

06.02.2005. After his death, his widow made a request to the College

(respondent No. 1 herein) to give appointment to her son, the petitioner

herein, to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist (in short 'JACT') on

compassionate grounds. Since the appointment as prayed for was not

coming through, she made representations to the UGC and also to the

Ministry of Human Resources reiterating her claim for appointment of the

petitioner on compassionate grounds. Pursuant to these representations

made by her, she succeeded in getting an advise issued by the UGC to

respondent No. 1 College vide UGC letter dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure P-

6 at page 21 of the paper book) advising the College to appoint the

petitioner to the post of 'JACT' on compassionate grounds. However, the

College on receiving the said advise from UGC, offered the post of Library

Assistant in the pay scale of Rs2650-65-3300-70-4000 to the petitioner

on compassionate grounds on 01.03.2007. This offer was accepted by the

petitioner and he joined respondent No. 1 College as Library Assistant

w.e.f. 01.03.2007. After he joined the service of respondent No. 1 College

as Library Assistant, he learnt that he was recommended by the UGC vide

letter dated 21.02.2007 referred above for his appointment to the post of

'JACT'. He thereafter started making representations not only to the

College but also to the concerned university authorities including UGC

for his appointment to the post of 'JACT' as recommended by the UGC.

Since his request for appointment to the post of 'JACT' on compassionate

grounds was not acceded to by any authority including respondent No. 1

College, he has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ

of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the

respondents to appoint him to the post of 'JACT' and grant him all other

consequential benefits including seniority as 'JACT' from the date of his

appointment in the College as Library Assistant.

3. Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner had relied upon the advise of the UGC contained in its letter

dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure P-6 at page 21 of the paper book) to argue

that respondent No. 1 College has acted malafidely in not appointing the

petitioner to the post of 'JACT' despite advise of the UGC, which according

to him is binding on the College. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to Annexure P-9 at page

24 of the paper book to show the reason communicated by the College to

the petitioner for denial of appointment to the post of 'JACT'. According to

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the College could

not have denied compassionate appointment to the petitioner to the post

of 'JACT' merely because he did not have the required skills of

typing/computer as mentioned in the communication dated 27.07.2007

(Annexure P-9). It was submitted that the scheme for compassionate

appointment annexed by respondent No. 1 College along with its counter

affidavit as Annexure R-1/1 provides for relaxation of typing test for

appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk on compassionate

grounds. The relevant extract from the scheme for compassionate

appointment referred by the counsel is at the top of page 62 of the paper

book. In the alternative, it was argued by the counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner possessed the qualification of diploma in Electronics,

which according to him implies that he had sufficient skills of

typing/computer. The submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner was that the post of Library Assistant offered by the College to

the petitioner was below his dignity and was not commensurate with his

qualifications possessed by him at the demise of his father. He therefore

requested that the directions may be given by the Court to respondent

No. 1 to appoint the petitioner to the post of 'JACT' with all consequential

benefits.

4. Per contra, Mr. Navin Chawla learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No. 1 College had argued that the petitioner had obtained

the letter dated 21.02.2007 from the UGC by exercising his clout and as

the College did not want to take an issue either with the UGC or with the

University, the College offered the post of Library Assistant to him on

compassionate grounds. It was further contended that there were several

seniors to the petitioner possessing better qualification, also appointed

on compassionate basis, and they could not have been overlooked in the

interest of justice. The argument of Mr. Chawla was that the petitioner

did not even possess the minimum qualification required for the post of

'JACT' in as much as he did not have the required skills of

typing/computer for the said post. It was submitted that compassionate

appointment is not a matter of right and was given to the petitioner

completely out of compassion to meet the emergency of financial crisis

that allegedly arose on account of demise of his father.

5 Mr. Chawla has placed reliance on two judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and they are (i) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs.

Satinder Kumar & Another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 597 and (ii) Umesh

Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others (1994) 4 SCC 138 . On

the strength of these two judgments, he had argued that even it is

assumed that the petitioner possessed the minimum qualification

required for the post of 'JACT', it does not confer any vested or legal right

in him to ask for an appointment on compassionate grounds to a

particular post of 'JACT'. Mr. Chawla also drew attention of this Court to

the pleadings of UGC and also of Delhi University contained in their

respective counter affidavits to show that they both admit that the UGC

had no power either to direct or to advise the College to make

appointment on compassionate grounds and that too on a particular post.

6 Mr. Amitesh Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the UGC

and Mr. Mohinder Rupal appearing on behalf of the Delhi University had

both adopted the argument of Mr. Chawla and they also agreed with him

that UGC had no power either to direct or advise the College to appoint a

particular person to a particular post.

7 I have given my anxious consideration to the above rival arguments

advanced by the counsel for both the parties and have also carefully

gone through the entire record of the present case.

8 The object of the scheme is to grant appointment on

compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government

servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical ground thereby

leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to

relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial

destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The efficiency of the

administration cannot be completely sacrificed while making

appointment. In cases of compassionate appointments, the authority

concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased

employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the

employee's death. 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 Government 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 interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such

exception is in favour of the dependents 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 dependents 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 held by

the deceased. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle

his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the

public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the

family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the

provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis

then a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.

9 In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and

Others (1994) 4 SCC 138 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as

under:-

"4.........The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of his dependent nor the post which he held is relevant.

5......... If the dependent of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity."

10 Similarly in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs.

Satinder Kumar & Another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 597 , it was held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"We find it difficult to approve this reasoning. The appointing authority cannot ignore the fact that while the minimum qualification for eligibility may be metric, however, generally graduates and even post-graduate degreeholders respond and offer themselves for clerical appointments. Courts cannot ignore this fact and direct that possession of minimum qualification alone would be sufficient. Some discretion to the appointing authority as to the choice of post, taking into account the realities of the employment-market, should be available. Then again it would be erroneous for the courts to compel appointment to particular posts. The fact of the matter is that though this kind of appointment is sui generis and it is reasonable to expect that as and when such claims arise a provision should be made for accommodating such claims from out of the posts available for direct recruitment, the Corporation is not unreasonable when it suggests that the qualifications for such appointments should broadly be commensurate with the level of candidates who offer themselves for appointment and not merely the minimum qualification."

11 The petitioner in the present case had done his XIIth standard at

the time of death of his father. At the time his father died, he was about

32 years old and could not have been considered to be financially

dependent on the deceased. The deceased father of the petitioner after

working for about 24 years in the College had given a notice only about a

month before his death for seeking voluntary retirement but he died

before the notice period could expire. Had father of the petitioner died on

expiry of notice period of his taking VRS, then certainly the petitioner had

no claim for his compassionate appointment. It is also not disputed on

behalf of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had a large chunk

of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh and that he has sought voluntary

retirement just a month before his death as he wanted to concentrate on

agriculture. In fact the petitioner had an alternate source of income from

agriculture and the family of the deceased employee could not be said to

have suffered financial crises in terms of policy for compassionate

appointment. Be that as it may, this Court would not like to go any

further into the question whether the petitioner was entitled or not for

compassionate appointment as a job of Library Assistant on

compassionate grounds has already been offered and accepted by the

petitioner.

12 The petitioner in the present case has based his claim for

compassionate appointment to a particular post of 'JACT' on the basis of

advise of the UGC contained in its letter dated 21.02.2007, Annexure P-6

at page 21 of the paper book. The advise of the UGC contained in the

said letter of 21.02.2007 is of no legal consequence because it was

admitted not only by the counsel for the UGC but also by the counsel for

Delhi University that the UGC had no power either to direct or advise the

College to appoint a particular person on compassionate grounds to a

particular post. The University Grants Commission has been constituted

under the provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No.

3 of 1956) which came into force w.e.f. 05.11.1956. The Act was enacted

to make provisions for the co-ordination and determination of standards

in universities. The Commission under the provisions of the Act has been

entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the

promotion and co-ordination of university education and for the

determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination

and research in universities. For the said purpose, the Commission has

been vested with the power to recommend to any university the

measures necessary for the improvement of university education and

advise the universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of

implementation of such recommendations. The powers that have been

bestowed under the provisions of University Grants Commission Act,

1956 do not empower the commission to recommend appointment of any

person in a college to a particular post.

13 The Delhi University, in para 4 of its counter affidavit, has taken a

categorical stand that it is not the role or function of the UGC to advise a

college in regard to appointment on compassionate grounds in individual

cases.

14 Even the UGC, in para 9 of its counter affidavit, has taken a stand

that so far as the appointment including the compassionate appointment

to any post in the Lady Shri Ram College for Women is concerned, the

same is to be considered as finally decided by the said College. It is

stated by the UGC that matter of such appointments is an issue of

internal administration of the College with which it has no role to play.

15 In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their separate

counter affidavits that the UGC has no role or power to direct the College

to make a particular appointment to a particular post, the petitioner

cannot be permitted to take any advantage of the advise contained in the

letter of UGC dated 21.02.2007 referred above. The power of making

appointment is vested solely with the Governing Body of the College

itself. On repeated representations of the petitioner made by him to the

concerned authorities after he had joined the service in respondent No. 1

College as Library Assistant, the Governing Body of the College in its

meeting held on 04.05.2007 had unanimously decided as under:-

"3.1.5. The Governing Body was appraised of the request submitted by Mrs. Swarna Devi w/o late Shri Sujan Singh, who had served the College for twenty four years and died while in employment, on February, 2005. Mrs. Swarna Devi made a request in writing to the Chairman that her son Mr. Ranjod Singh may be appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist after he was appointed as Library Attendant. The Governing Body noted that her son Mr. Ranjod Singh is not suitable for appointment by the College for the post of 'JACT'. He does not have typing/compute knowledge, which is essential from the College point of view for this position. The Governing Body decided that since he does not possess the

required skills for the same, there was no question of considering him for appointment as 'JACT' at this stage. The Governing Body further decided that it was necessary to meet College needs. Mr. Ranjod Singh had already been given appointment on compassionate grounds, as Library Attendant and this request cannot be entertained. The Governing Body reiterated its right of appointment as per guidelines laid down and based on the requirements of the College."

16 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life

Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandran Ambekar &

Ors. (JT 1994 (2) SC 183) that even the High Court and Administrative

Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of a person on

compassionate grounds but can merely direct consideration of the claim

for such an appointment. In view of this judgment of the Supreme Court,

the UGC could not have given any direction to the College for

appointment of the petitioner to a specified post of 'JACT'. In the present

case, the Governing Body of respondent No. 1 College had taken a

unanimous decision as referred above that the petitioner could not be

appointed to the post of 'JACT' because he did not possess the required

typing/computer knowledge and also because there were persons seniors

to him who possessed better qualification and could not have been

ignored. It is this decision of the Governing Body that will hold the field.

17 The argument of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner that the College could have relaxed the requirement of

knowledge of typing/computer as provided in the scheme for

compassionate appointment, does not hold any water. His argument that

Diploma in Electronics possessed by the petitioner by itself shows that he

had knowledge of typing/computer is also untenable. The Diploma in

Electronics possessed by the petitioner has no relevance to the post of

'JACT' or even to respondent No. 1 College otherwise as the said College

is not a science College. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner

possessed minimum qualification required for the post of 'JACT', still he

has no vested or legal right to claim appointment on compassionate

grounds on a post of his choice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid

down in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra) that mere possessing

of minimum qualification to hold a particular post does not bestow any

legal right on the dependent of a deceased employee to seek

employment on compassionate grounds to a particular post. This Court is

of the opinion that compassionate appointment to a particular post

cannot be claimed by anybody as a matter of right. Non-appointment of

the petitioner to a post of his choice does not violate any of his

fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under the Constitution.

18 In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this writ petition,

which fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 15, 2010                                         S.N.AGGARWAL
'a'                                                         [JUDGE]