STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus ANKUR GUPTA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 03-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ANKUR GUPTA 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Appointment-Compassionate Appointment Scheme-Government 
instructions provided that only dependants of the deceased employees C 
whose family income is upto a prescribed limit and none oj the parents 
are in Government employment can be appointed-Respondent employed 
in violation of the Scheme-Appellants nullified appointment after 4 
years-High Court upheld the compassionate appointment of respondent-
Held, appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right-Object of D 
compassionate appointment is to enable family to get over sudden financial 
crisis but it should be made in accordance with rules, regulations or 
administrative instructions-Appointment was not permissible in view of 
policy-However, keeping in view that respondent has served for 4 years, 
this period shall be considered if he applies in normal course. 
Appointment-Compassionate Appointment Scheme-Power of High 
Court and Administrative Tribunals-Appointment impermissible on 
sympathetic considerations when regulations do not cover such appointment. 
E 
The father of the respondent died in service. Respondent was, F 
therefore, appointed in government employment under the 
compassionate appointment scheme. The scheme had been modified as 
per the decision of the High Court. It put an embargo that if any of 
the parents of a dependant were in government employment then there 
shall be no entitlement for appointment. The respondent was appointed G 
on the basis of a relaxation, in spite of fact that his mother was in 
government employment and the family income was above the stipulated 
level. The appellants later nullified the appointment after 4 years as 
it was found to be against the scheme. The High Court quashed the 
order, which nullified the appointment. Hence this appeal by the State 
Government. 
333 
H 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant contended that the approach of the High Court was 
erroneous as the appointment was made in violation of the scheme and 
no legal right was conferred upon the respondent. 
The respondent contended that the approach was correct as no 
B misrepresentation or fraud was resorted to in order to gain employment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Public service appointment should be made strictly on 
the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment 
C on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but 
merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into 
consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving 
his family without any means of livelihood. The object is to enable the 
family to get over sudden financial crisis but such appointments on 
D compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, 
regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the 
financial condition of the family of the deceased.[337-G, H, 338-A, BJ 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., JT (1996) 6 SCC 
E 646; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1994) 4 SCC 
138; Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar 
and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 192 and Seate of Manipur v. Md Rajaodin, relied 
on. 
2. The appointment of the respondent admittedly was not 
F permissible in view of the modified policy. The correctness of the policy 
decision was not under challenge. In view of the legal position the logic 
of the policy cannot be undermined. 
3. High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer 
G benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appoint-
ments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect 
thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. [337-GJ 
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar 
H (Mrs.) and Anr., (1994) 2 sec 718, relied on. 
STATEv. ANKURGUPTA [PASAYAT, J.] 
335 
4. As regards the question whether there was any fraud or A 
misrepresentation, the officers concerned from the beginning were 
acting in a manner contrary to the policy. It was clearly recorded that 
mother of respondent was already in government service and also 
noted that only those dependants of the deceased employee/officer 
whose family income is upto Rs. 2500 p.m. can be appointed although B 
the monthly salary of respondent's mother was higher and there was 
no scope for appointing the respondent

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