KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. versus SHRI DHARMENDRA SHARMA

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
J 
KENDRIY A VIDYALA YA SANGA THAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SHRI DHARMENDRA SHARMA 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
(DR. ARIJITPASA Y AT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A,JJ.J 
B 
Service Law: 
Compassionate appointment-Appointment against quota reserved for 
compassionate appointment denied to respondent on ground of policy C 
decision-Correctness of-Held: A policy decision not to make appointment 
in Group 'D' posts taken by the appellant-organisation was not challenged 
by the respondent-Courts b<;/ow did not refer to the policy decision before 
arriving at the findings-Hence, direction of Central Administrative Tribunal 
to appellant-organisation to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground D 
against quota reserved for such posts, as affirmed by the High Court, cannot 
be maintained-However, [f the appellant at any point of time, adopt any 
compassionate appointment scheme and intends to make appointment in 
Group 'D' posts, the case of the respondent shall be duly considered-
Directions issued 
Father of the respondent was employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 
E 
and died in harness on 17.9.1999. An application filed by the respondent for 
appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the authorities. 
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, which was allowed by it directing the appellant to appoint the F 
respondent on compassionate ground. Despite the directions, prayer of the 
respondent was rejected by the appellant vide its order dated 18.9.2001. The 
order was challenged by the respondent before the CAT by filing another 
petition. The Tribunal, while granting relief to the respondent, directed that 
respondent's name should be kept on panel for appointment on cortapassionate 
ground and his case should be considered as and when vacancy arises. G 
Appellant challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court, 
which was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Organisation contended that a policy decisiou had been taken 
1007 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A not to make appointment of Group 'D' post 
B 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal and the High Court did not refer to the policy 
decision at all. (Para 6) (1010-A) 
1.2. Since the policy decision was not challenged, it was incumbent upon 
the Tribunal and the High Court to examine the applicability of the policy 
decision. No direction could have been given to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 
to act ctontrary to its policy decision. Therefore, the decision by CAT as 
affirmedby the High Court cannot be maintained. However, it is made clear if 
C at any point of time KVS wants to adopt any compassionate _appointments 
scheme and intends to make appointments in Group D posts, the case of the 
respondent shall be duly considered. It is clarified further that no opinion 
has been expressed as to the eligibility or otherwise of the respondent That 
is for KVS to decide. (Paras 6 and 7) (1010-A-C) 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4265 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2005 of the High Court of 
Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. (C) Writ Petition No. 988 of 2003. 
S. Rajappa and Jayaraman for the Appellants. 
Manoj Swamp, Lalita Kohli A.K. Tripathi and Manoj Swamp & Co., for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed 
by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 
G 26.11.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 
'CAT') in OA 35/i002. 
.. 
t 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
( 
Father of the respondent was employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 
J_
H (in short 'KVS') and died in harness on 17.9.1999. Respondent filed an 
KEN.VIDY A.SANGATHANv. DHARMENDRASHARMA[PASA YAT,J.] l 009 
application for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was rejected A 
by the appellants. The respondent filed OA/2000 before the CAT which was 
allowed and the Union of India and others were directed to consider the 
request of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground against 
5% of the 53 Group-D vacancies available. Despite these directions, the 
prayer of the respondent was declined by order dated 18.9.2001. The orde

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