DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY) AND ANR. versus PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 13-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY) AND ANR. 
v. 
PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS 
MAY 13, 1998 
B 
[S.C. AGARWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMED AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Compassionate appointment-Object of-Explained-Such appoin-
C tments made in supersession of prescribed procedure for appointment-
Recruitment process-Prospective candidates from the market viz-a-viz 
compassionate appointees~lt has to be ensured that a provision for grant 
of compassionate appointment does not unduly interfere with the right of 
other persons who are eligible for appointment against posts which would 
have been available to them-Else that would be violative of equality clause--, 
D Statute law-Interpretation of statutes-Internal aids-Proviso-
Interpretation of-Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16. 
Compassionate appointment-Relevant regulation containing provision 
for appointment to a non-teaching post on compassionate ground-Held, 
appointment on Class IV post could be offered if Class Ill post was not 
E available-Direction of High Court for creating supernumerary post cannot 
be upheld-if necessary only a supernumerary Class JV post can be created-
U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness 
Rules, 1974-U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 9 (4)-
Regulations framed thereunder, Regulation IOI to 107. 
F 
The respondents were dependents of persons employed as teaching and 
non-teaching staff in non - government aided schools and intermediate colleges 
in the State of U.P. The employees died in harness, and therefore, the 
respondents made applications before the District Inspector of Schools for 
giving appointment of compassionate grounds. In most of these case of the 
G District Inspector of Schools passed orders for their being appointetl on 
Class IV posts. After respondents having been appointed as such, they filed 
a writ petition in the High Court seeking appropriate directions for being 
Appointed on Class III posts on the ground that they posses requisite 
qualifications for being appointed on Class III post of clerk in view of 
Regulation 103 to 106 framed under Section 9(4) of the U.P. Intermediate 
H Education Act. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court. It was also 
432 
... .. 
.. 
..
-
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION v. P. KUMAR 
433 
directed that appointments be made on Class III posts if the candidates A 
. possess the requisite qualifications and if no post of Class III was available 
then to create supe-numerary posts. Hence this appeal. 
Appellants referring to various data contended that if supernumerary 
posts were created as per the directions of the High Court, it will lead to 
severe practical problems e.g. no post will ever be available for direct B 
recruitment of other persons who are eligible for appointment. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. I. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate 
employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the 
sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the C 
family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure 
humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some 
source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both 
in ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of 
the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. D 
Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions of making 
appointment by following prescribed procedure. It is in the nature of an 
exception to the general provisions. An exception can not subsume the main 
provision and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely 
the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken 
that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the E 
nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere 
with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek 
employment against the i>OSt which would have been available to them, but for 
the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of 
the dependent of a deceased employ. [440-D-G] 
F 
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, [1994) 4 SCC 138, relied 
on 
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, [1989] 4 SCC 468, referred to. 
1.2. The construction placed by the High Court on the Regulations G 
governing appointment of dependents 

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