SHREEJITH L. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 03-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 427 
SHREEJITH L. 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KERALA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4848 of 2012 etc.) 
JULY 3, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
A 
B 
Compassionate appointment - Period of limitation for c 
making application - Held: In view of the statutory rules and 
Para 19 of G.O. dated 24.5.1999, application for 
compassionate appointment has to be made within two years 
from the date of death of the Government servant - In the case 
of minors, the permissible period for making application is · 0 
three years from the date the minor attains majority - An 
application for appointment on compassionate basis has to 
be made within the period stipulated for the purpose -
Availability of vacancy has nothing to do with the making of 
the application itself - Kera/a Education Act - Kera/a 
E 
Education Rules - rr. 9A and 518 - G.O. dated 24.5.1999. 
Compassionate appointment - Married daughter 
claiming appointment on the ground of death of her 
mother while in service - Application filed after 14 years 
of attaining the majority - Held: Delay assumes greater 
F 
significance keeping in view the fact that the applicant 
has got married and has now settled with her husband 
comprising a separate family - Appointment of the 
applicant may not in that view lead to any financial help 
for the other members of the family left behind by the 
G 
deceased - Orders passed by the authorities allowing the 
claim are set aside. 
Compassionate appointment - Format of application 
427 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 6 S.C.R. 
A - Held: The substance of the application is important and 
not the form - If the application in substance conveyed 
the request for a compassionate appointment and 
provided the information required for considering the 
request, the very fact that the information was not in a 
B given format would not have been a good reason to turn 
down the request - The scheme is meant to be a 
beneficial one aimed at helping those in need of 
assistance on account of an untimely demise in the family 
- Constitution of India - Article 136. 
c 
D 
The instant appeals arose out of the claims for 
compassionate appointment on teaching/non-teaching 
posts made by the dependants of the employees who 
died while in service in the State of Kerala on different 
teaching/non-teaching posts. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Appointments on compassionate basis are 
recognised as a permissible mode of induction into 
E service under the Kerala Education Rules 'framed under 
the Kerala Education Act. It is evident from a plain reading 
of rr. 9A and 51 B that appointments under the statutory 
rules are further regulated by the terms of government 
orders issued on the subject. A conjoint reading of the 
Statutory Rules and para 19 of the Government Order 
F dated 24.05.1999 would show that the compassionate 
appointment scheme itself permits applications to be 
made within two years from the date of death of the 
government servant. In the case of minors the 
permissible period for making applications is three years 
G from the date the minor attains majority. [para 9 and 11] 
[435-G-H; 436-H; 437-A-B] 
2.1 In the case of respondent no. 5 in C.A. No. 4848 
of 2012, the application for appointment as a Lower Grade 
H Sanskrit Teacher was made within three years of his 
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 429 
KERALA & ORS. 
attaining majority. It is manifest that the scheme not only 
A 
permitted making of an application but when read in 
conjunction with r. 9A entitled respondent No.5 to seek 
such an appointment subject to his fulfilling other 
requirements stipulated in the scheme. It is nobody's case 
that respondent No.5 did not satisfy other conditions 
B 
stipulated in the Government Order nor was his request 
for appointment as Junior Grade Sanskrit Teacher 
rejected on any such ground. That being so, the High 
Court was justified in holding that the prayer for 
appointment made by respondent No.5 should have c 
been allowed. [para 11] [437-B-D] 
2.2 It is true that the appellant had worked for nearly 
five years after his appointment against the vacancy but 
it is equally true that he could not legally oppose or 
grudge the claim made by respondent No.5 in the light D 
of the provisions of the scheme and the statutory rules 
on the subject, particularly, when his appointment itself 
had been made entirely at the discretion of the Manager 
of the institutio

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