COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND ORS. versus K.R. VISHWANATH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 30-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND ORS. 
v. 
K.R. VISHWANA TH 
AUGUST 30, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYA. T AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Compassionate appointment-Minor son of deceased government servant 
C applyingfor compassionate appointment after more than one year of attaining 
majority-Rule applicable providing for making application within one year 
aft.'!r attaining majority-Held, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed 
as a matter of right but has to be made in accordance with rules, regulations 
and administrative instructions-In the facts, held, application beyond 
D time and rejection of application proper-Karnataka Civil Services 
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 & Karnataka Civil 
Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 
1998-Rule 5. 
E 
F 
Respondent was only two months old when his father who was a 
government servant died. Respondent attained majority on 20.10.1995 
and submitted applicatio!l seeking appointment on compassionate grounds 
on 2.12.1996 under Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on 
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 which was rejected by appellant on 
J 1/13.11.1997 on the ground that application had not been filed within one 
year of attaining majority. Another application made by respondent on 
22.4.1998 was not entertained. Amendments were made to the 1990 Rules 
. 
by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) 
(Amendment) Rules, 1998 which were made operative with effect from 
1.4.1999. Respondent filed another application on 29.11.1999 which was 
rejected by the appellant stating that no application was pending when 
G the Amendment Rules, 1998 came into force and, therefore, the amendment 
Rult>s had no application. Respondent approached Tribunal questioning 
the order of rejection, which was allowed and the Tribunal directed 
appellants to consider the case of respondent for appointment on 
compassionate grounds without regard to any period of limitation, 
H Appellants filed Writ Petition challenging order passed by tribunal which 
1042 
-" 
-
' 
COMMR. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS v. K.R. VISHWANATH 
1043 
was dismissed by the High Court holding that respondent was entitled to A 
appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that the Courts below failed to notice relevant 
provisions and proceeded on factually and legally erroneous premises; 
that the view taken would make belated application deemed to have been B 
made within time which would be clearly contrary to the applicable 
provisions; and that the view of High Court is indefensible in view of the 
object of compassionate appointment. 
Respondent contended that the Rules are merely directory; and that 
technical view should not be taken to as the object of compassionate C 
appointment is to provide sustenance to members of a deceased government 
servant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another 
source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement 
taking into consideration the fact to the death of employee while in service 
leaving his family without any means of livelihood. Jn such cases the object 
D 
is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments 
should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. E 
But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in 
accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking 
into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 
Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of 
right. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father F 
is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to 
state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed 
without any time consciousness or limit. [1048-B, C, DJ 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., AIR (1996) SC 2445, 
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and G 
Anr., (1994] 2 SCC 718, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., 
[1994] 4 SCC 138, Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 
[1998] 4 SCC 468, Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors., (1991] Supp. 
2 SCC 689, Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh. (1995] 6 SCC 476, 
Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and O

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.