2022 (10) TMI 8 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for appointment on compassionate ground - application rejected stating that due to veracity of vacancies request for compassionate appointment could not be acceded - HELD THAT - The fact remains that the employee died in the year 1994 and the wife of the employee was provided with an appointment on compassionate ground. She served and subsequently, she also died. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted an application and withdrew the same and re-submitted after a lapse of about two years. Thereafter, the brother of the writ petitioner also submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment after rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner. Pertinently, the brother of the writ petitioner originally submitted no objection to provide appointment to the writ petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an affidavit of no objection to provide employment to his brother. All contradictory facts and circumstances reveals that the petitioner is not eligible for the compassionate appointment, more over, several years lapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee and at this length of time seeking compassionate appointment cannot be extended to the writ petitioner. Writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Consideration of representation for compassionate appointment on grounds of sudden death of employee, rejection of application, eligibility for compassionate appointment, repeated applications for compassionate appointment, impact of large scale compassionate appointments on public administration efficiency, lapse of time affecting eligibility for compassionate appointment, evaluation of financial position for compassionate appointment, recent Supreme Court judgments on compassionate appointments.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed seeking consideration of a representation for compassionate appointment following the sudden death of an employee. The petitioner's father, a driver, passed away in 1994, and the mother was appointed on compassionate grounds in 2010 but also subsequently passed away in 2013. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in 2014, which was withdrawn and re-submitted in 2016. The respondent rejected the application in 2019 citing lack of vacancies for compassionate appointments.

The court noted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not an absolute right, meant to be implemented in a restricted manner to genuinely needy families. Allowing large-scale compassionate appointments could infringe on the rights of other eligible candidates seeking public employment through open competition. The judgment emphasized that compassionate appointments should not be granted based on misplaced sympathy, as it could lead to inefficiencies in public administration and violate constitutional provisions.

The court highlighted that the passage of time could indicate improved financial circumstances, rendering the need for compassionate appointment unnecessary. It was also noted that pensionary benefits should be considered in evaluating financial need, as highlighted in a Supreme Court judgment regarding the evaluation of family pensions for compassionate appointments.

Recent Supreme Court judgments were cited to reinforce the principles that compassionate appointments should be exceptions to normal recruitment methods, subject to stringent scrutiny of various parameters including financial need, economic dependence, and qualifications of family members. The judgments emphasized that compassionate appointments should strictly adhere to prevailing rules and financial criteria to prevent exclusion of more deserving candidates in acute financial distress.

In the specific case, the court found that the petitioner's repeated applications, contradictory statements, and the lapse of time since the employee's death did not warrant compassionate appointment. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that compassionate appointment cannot be extended indefinitely and must be based on valid eligibility criteria to maintain fairness and efficiency in public administration.