2012 (7) TMI 1082 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compassionate appointment eligibility and delay in application.
2. Validity of appointment process and adherence to statutory rules.
3. Impact of marriage and change in family status on compassionate appointment.
4. Procedural requirements for compassionate appointment applications.

Summary:

1. Compassionate Appointment Eligibility and Delay in Application:
The Supreme Court addressed the eligibility and delay in applications for compassionate appointments. In the case of Respondent No. 5, the application was made within the permissible period stipulated by the scheme, hence the High Court's decision to allow the appointment was upheld. However, in the case of Respondent No. 1, who applied 12 years after attaining majority, the application was deemed belated and the High Court's decision to grant the appointment was reversed. Similarly, in the case of Respondent No. 4, the application was within the prescribed time but not in the proper format, which was not considered a valid ground for rejection.

2. Validity of Appointment Process and Adherence to Statutory Rules:
The Court emphasized that appointments should comply with statutory rules and government orders. For instance, the appointment of the Appellant in preference to Respondent No. 5 was set aside due to lack of a fair and competitive selection process. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that Respondent No. 5 was entitled to the appointment as per the statutory rules and the compassionate appointment scheme.

3. Impact of Marriage and Change in Family Status on Compassionate Appointment:
The Court considered the impact of marriage and change in family status on the eligibility for compassionate appointments. In the case of Respondent No. 1, who had married and settled with her husband, the Court found that the delay of 14 years in applying for the appointment, along with her changed family status, disqualified her from being considered for compassionate appointment. The High Court's decision to grant the appointment was reversed.

4. Procedural Requirements for Compassionate Appointment Applications:
The Court highlighted the importance of procedural compliance in filing applications for compassionate appointments. In the case of Respondent No. 4, the initial application was not in the prescribed format, but the Manager's acknowledgment and subsequent actions indicated that the format was not a critical issue. The Court ruled that the application should not be rejected solely on the basis of format if it substantially conveyed the request for appointment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing various issues related to compassionate appointments, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory rules, timely applications, and consideration of family status changes. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions based on the merits of each case.

Final Orders:
1. Civil Appeal No. 7556 of 2008: Dismissed.
2. Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2009: Allowed; High Court's order set aside.
3. Civil Appeal No. 33421 of 2009: Dismissed.
4. Civil Appeals Nos. 31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011: Allowed; High Court's orders set aside.
5. Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2010: Dismissed.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs in all the appeals.