1998 (5) TMI 410 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment on compassionate grounds for dependents of teaching/non-teaching staff in non-government recognized aided schools and intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh.
2. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
3. Interpretation and application of Circular dated September 23, 1981, and subsequent amendments.
4. Creation of supernumerary posts for dependents' appointments.
5. High Court's directions on appointments to Class III posts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment on Compassionate Grounds:
The appeals concern the appointment of dependents of deceased teaching/non-teaching staff in non-government recognized aided schools and intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh. These appointments are made on compassionate grounds to support the families of employees who died in harness.

2. Applicability of 1974 Rules:
The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, applies to government employees but not to staff in government-recognized aided institutions. The 1974 Rules allow for the relaxation of normal recruitment rules to facilitate the employment of dependents of deceased government servants.

3. Circular and Amendments:
Initially, a Circular dated September 23, 1981, directed that dependents of deceased teaching/non-teaching staff in non-government aided secondary schools be given employment, provided they meet the qualifications for non-teaching posts. This Circular was followed by a notification on July 30, 1992, which inserted Regulations 101 to 107 in Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. These regulations provided detailed procedures for such appointments, including the creation of supernumerary posts if no vacancies were available.

4. Creation of Supernumerary Posts:
The High Court directed that if no Class III post was available, a supernumerary post should be created for the appointment of dependents. The appellants argued that this directive caused practical problems, as it would monopolize all Class III vacancies, excluding other eligible candidates from direct recruitment.

5. High Court's Directions:
The High Court quashed orders appointing dependents to Class IV posts and directed their appointment to Class III posts if they had the necessary qualifications. The High Court also mandated the creation of supernumerary posts if no Class III vacancies were available.

Supreme Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are an exception to the general recruitment rules, intended to provide immediate relief to the deceased employee's family. The Court noted that such appointments should not override the rights of other eligible candidates for direct recruitment.

The Court held that the High Court's interpretation, which required creating supernumerary Class III posts, was incorrect. Instead, if no Class III post was available, dependents should be appointed to Class IV posts, and supernumerary posts should be created only in Class IV.

The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgments were set aside. The respondents were directed to be appointed to Class IV posts if no Class III vacancies were available. The Court restored the orders of the District Inspectors of Schools for Class IV appointments and directed the concerned authorities to consider the applications accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court clarified that compassionate appointments should balance the need for immediate relief to the deceased employee's family with the rights of other eligible candidates. The creation of supernumerary posts should be limited to Class IV positions if no Class III vacancies are available.