LexSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. versus ARVINDKUMAR T. TIWARI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1072 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. v. ARVINDKUMAR T. TIWARI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6468 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: Appointment on compassionate ground - Eligibility - Relaxation - Held: Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right - A claim to be appointed on such a ground has to be considered in accordance with rules, 0 regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of family of deceased - Eligibility criteria for a class IV post being 10th standard, and the applicant being 8th fail, was not eligible to apply for the post - The income of the family was also E above the financial limit - In view of the settled position, it is neither desirable, nor permissible in law, for the Court to issue direction to relax the eligibility criteria anrl appoint the applicant merely on humanitarian grounds. Service Law - 'Eligibility' - Connotation of - Explained - F Held: Fixing the eligibility for a particular post falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service - Courts and tribunal do not have G the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention thereof. H Respondent No. 1, applied for the post of Peon on compassionate ground as his father, an ASI of Police, 1072 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. v. ARVINDKUMAR T. 1073 TIWARI & ANR. died in harness on 9.4.1999. His application was first A rejected on the ground that the family had an income over and above the limit fixed for the purpose and, subsequently, on the ground that he did not meet the examinations minimum eligibility for the post as he had not passed 10th standard examinations which was a B necessary pre-requisite for a class IV post. On a Special Civil Application, being filed by respondent no. 1, it was held that since his father died in 1999, the subsequent provision prescribing 10th pass for class IV post was not applicable and his case was directed to be considered c afresh accordingly. The Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere. Allowing the appeal, filed by the department, the Court D HELD: 1.1 It is a settled legal proposition that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. A claim to be appointed on such a ground has to be considered in accordance with the rules, E regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The objective of providing of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it F finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it. [para 5] [1078-E-G] Union of India & Ors. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2294 - relied on. 1.2 The eligibility for the post may at times is misunderstood to mean qualification. In fact, eligibility connotes the minimum criteria for selection, that may be laid down by the executive authority/legislature by way G of any statute or rules, while the term qualification, may H 1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A connote any additional norms laid down by the authorities. Before a candidate is considered for a post or even for admission to the institution, he must fulfill the eligibility criteria. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would B amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. [para 6 and 11] [1078-H; 1079-A-B; 1081-B] Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors., 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 =AIR 1999 SC 2894; State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwah & Ors., 1974 (1) SCR 165 =AIR C 1973 SC 2216; J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1990 (2) SCR 470 = AIR 1990 SC 857; and Ashok Kumar Uppal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., 1998 (1) SCR 164 =AIR 1998 SC 2812 - referred to D 2.1 Fixing the eligibility for a particular post falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.