1994 (5) TMI 272 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of compassionate appointment scheme.
2. Claim for appointment as a Teacher.
3. Representation for appointment as Sub-Inspector.
4. Representation for transfer to Excise and Taxation Department.
5. Allegation of discrimination and violation of fundamental rights.
6. Comparison of the respondent's case with others appointed on compassionate grounds.
7. Legality of the High Court's direction to appoint the respondent as Inspector.
8. Scope of judicial review in mandamus petitions.

Analysis:

The case involves a dispute regarding the application of a compassionate appointment scheme by the State of Haryana. The respondent's father, a deceased Constable, was covered under a scheme allowing his widow to sponsor a family member for government service. The respondent, sponsored by his mother, was appointed as a Clerk in the Police Department. However, the respondent later sought appointment as a Teacher and then as a Sub-Inspector, which were rejected due to lack of qualifications and promotional nature of the post, respectively.

The respondent filed a writ petition alleging discrimination against him compared to others appointed on compassionate grounds. The High Court held in favor of the respondent, directing his appointment as an Inspector within three months. The appellants contended that the appointment was made in compliance with the scheme and that the respondent's case was not comparable to others due to merit considerations and different posts.

The Supreme Court analyzed the factual background, emphasizing the respondent's initial willingness to be appointed as a Clerk and subsequent claims for higher positions. The Court criticized the High Court's conclusion of discrimination without proper analysis of comparability with other cases. It highlighted the promotional nature of the Inspector post and the limited scope of judicial review in mandamus petitions.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The Court clarified that judicial review is focused on the decision-making process rather than the decision itself, emphasizing that the authorities should exercise their power within legal boundaries. The appeal was allowed with no costs awarded.