//
you're reading...
legal issues

Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”. (Vide State of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma (1999)3 SCC 653 and Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 8 SCC 633.)” 11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court as above, we are of the opinion that since the respondent was not qualified for the post of driver, as such the High Court erred in law in directing the appellant to consider his case against the post of driver of heavy vehicle. 12. Therefore in the above circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed as the respondent is not qualified for the post of driver. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2061 OF 2015
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21297 of 2014)
The Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and others … Appellants
Versus
Revat Singh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
1.5.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 428 of 2014 whereby the Division
Bench declined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single
Judge.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father of the
respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“Corporation”). He died in harness on 26.6.2006. The respondent
sought compassionate appointment on the post of driver. His
educational qualification was 8th standard pass. The appellants
considered the application for appointment on compassionate ground,
and rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was not
qualified either for the post of driver or that of conductor. The
respondent was accordingly communicated by the appellants vide letter
dated 18.1.2008. The respondent made further correspondence in the
matter after obtaining driving licence on 23.1.2007. However, said
licence was not for heavy vehicles. When the appellants did not
accept request for appointment against the post of driver, the
respondent filed writ petition no. 1892 of 2011 which was allowed by
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.1.2014, directing the
appellant to consider case of the respondent for the post of driver.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant
filed intra court appeal, but the same was disposed of by the Division
Bench of the High Court vide impugned order dated 1.5.2014 declining
to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, and observed that
the said order advances the cause of justice considering the hardship
faced by the family of deceased employee. However, it was further
observed by the Division Bench that the order would be treated to have
been passed in the special facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant – Rajasthan State Road Corporation –
submitted before this Court that the High Court has erred in law in
directing the appellant to consider the case of respondent for
appointment against the post of driver on the compassionate ground.
It is specifically pointed out that the respondent is not qualified
for the post of driver as he is neither matriculate nor possessed
driving licence for heavy vehicles.

6. Shri Virender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, did
not deny that the respondent was only 8th standard pass, and
the driving licence obtained in the year 2007, was in respect of light
vehicles.

7. During arguments, we are informed by learned counsel for the appellant-
Corporation that respondent has now been offered and engaged as
Artisan Grade III. On behalf of the respondent, it is pleaded that
the respondent be engaged at least against post of Artisan Grade II.
However, there is nothing on the record to show that such post is
lying vacant nor is it clear that a person can be directly appointed
to the post of Artisan Grade II.
8. In I.G.(Karmik) and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC
162, this Court has held that compassionate appointment can not be
granted to a post for which the candidate is ineligible. It is
further held in said case that even though higher post was applied for
on compassionate ground, when a lower post offered considering
qualification and eligibility as per rules was accepted by the
candidate, he cannot claim higher post.
9. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC
560, this Court has clarified the law relating to compassionate
appointments in following words:
“15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The
criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of the sole
bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to
provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised,
the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a
scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates
should be considered for appointment in the posts which have
fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a
dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said
rule. It is a concession, not a right. (See SBI v. Anju Jain,
(2008) 8 SCC 475 para 33.)”
10. In State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545, this
Court while examining the law in the matters of compassionate
appointment, has made following observations:
“11. The courts and tribunals do not have the power to issue
direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of
eligibility or in contravention thereof. In State of M.P. v.
Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165, this Court while dealing with a
similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held
as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31)
“31. … The courts as also the tribunals have no power to
override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on
sympathetic consideration that a person, though not
possessing the essential educational qualifications, should
be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of
his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or
amending the statutory provisions made by the Government
under Article 309 of the Constitution.”
12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for
admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the
legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of
judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or
has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service,
for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus
with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such
eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion,
unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise
the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules
existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments,
the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the
procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the
requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore,
refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or
the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the
cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”. (Vide State
of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma (1999)3 SCC 653 and Praveen Singh v.
State of Punjab (2000) 8 SCC 633.)”
11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court as above, we are
of the opinion that since the respondent was not qualified for the
post of driver, as such the High Court erred in law in directing the
appellant to consider his case against the post of driver of heavy
vehicle.
12. Therefore in the above circumstances, this appeal deserves to be
allowed as the respondent is not qualified for the post of driver.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However, the respondent shall be
allowed to work on the post of Artisan Grade III as offered to him.
No order as to cost.
……………………………..
…J.
[Dipak Misra]

………………………………J
.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
February 20, 2015.

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,621,647 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,843 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com