NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. versus NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 02-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. 
v. 
NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH 
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court-Contempt proceedings-Compassionate 
appointment-Cancellation of-By the institute-Pursuant to direction of 
C Court in a different proceeding-After giving proper opportunity of showing 
cause-Initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings-Propriety of-Held: 
Since the appointment was proved to be a nullity, initiation of contempt 
proceedings not justified-Service Law-Compassionate appointment. 
Service 
Law-Compassionate 
appointment-Compassionate 
D appointment de-hors a scheme and in violation of the constitutional scheme 
would be illegal and would be rendered a nullity. 
E 
Res-judicaCa-Applicability-Held: Where an order is passed by an 
authority which lacks inherent jurisdiction, the principles of res-judicata 
would not apply. 
Widow of a deceased employee of appellant-Institute, made application 
for appointment of the respondent (grandson of the deceased) on compassionate 
ground. Initially he was appointed on daily wages and after 15 years he was 
given regular appointment on temporary basis. Thereafter the widow sought 
for appointment of her son and cancellation of appointment of the respondent 
F Since the request was not adhered to, she filed Writ Petition, but the same 
was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. Order of Single Judge was 
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court 
In a proceeding under Writ Petition filed by a person claiming 
G appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner therein was directed by 
High Court to bring to the notice of the appellant-Institute any case wherein 
appointment was given after a long delay or illegally and the Institute was to 
take action. The petitioner therein brought the case of the respondent herein 
to the notice of the appellant-Institute. As no action was taken, petitioner 
therein filed contempt petition. High Court directed competent authority to 
H 
184 
NA TI ON AL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYv. NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH 
185 
issue show cause notice to illegal appointees. 
Appellant-Institute, thereafter issued show cause notice and 
subsequently also cancelled the appointment of the respondent. Order of 
cancellation was also challenged by the respondent in a separate Writ Petition. 
High Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the appellant-
A 
institute. 
B 
The question forlconsideration in the present appeal was whether the 
High Court was justified in initiating suo moto contempt proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of 
the Constitution oflndia. It, therefore, in the matter ofappointment, is under 
a constitutional obligation to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality 
as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Para 13) 
c 
1.2. Appointment on compassionate ground would be illegal in absence D 
of any scheme providing therefor. Such scheme must be commensurate with 
the constitutional scheme of equality. [Para 14) (191-C-D) 
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh & Ors., 
(2006) 13 SCALE 426; relied on. 
1.3. All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of 
the Constitution of India. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases where 
appointments are to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the 
employee who died in harness. Such an exception is carved out with a view to 
E 
see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not F 
become a destitute. No appointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can 
be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit the exception has 
been carved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not 
derive any benefit thereunder. (Para 16( (191-F-G) 
Auditor General of India and Ors. v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao, (1994) G 
I SCC 192 and Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1987) SC 1015, 
relied on. 
Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration, Hyderabad 
and Ors. v. D. Gopaiah and Ors., (2006) 6 ALT 553 (FB), referred to. 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4. The appointment on compassionate ground, thus, could have been 
offered only to a person who was the widow of the deceased or a dependent 
child. Admittedly, the son of the deceased was only one year old at the time of 
his father's death. He could not, thus, have 

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