STATE OF J & K AND ORS. versus SAJAD AHMED MIR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 17-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. 
v. 
SAJAD AHMED MIR 
JULY 17, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Appointment-Compassionate appointment-Applicant's father died in 
C harness-Applicant sought for compassionate appointment 4 years after 
death-Authorities informed his ineligibility to appointrr.ent-Same not 
challenged-Writ petition filed after considerable period-Maintainability 
of-Held: Not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches-Jammu & 
Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994. 
D 
Compassionate appointment-Object of 
Constitution of fndia, 1950 : 
Article 14-General rule of appointment is that efigible candidates can 
E come forward to apply and compete with each other-This general rule is 
in consonance with Article 14-lt should not be departed from except where 
compelling circumstances demand-Compassionate appointment-Held: Is 
an exception to general rule. 
The father of respondent-applicant died in harness in 1987. In 1991, 
F applicant applied for compassionate appointment. He was found under-aged 
but his case was recommended for relaxation of age bar. The authorities took 
decision in March, 1996 that no appointment could be given to him and he 
was informed accordingly. The applicant had never challenged that decision. 
In 1999, he filed Writ Petition before High Court, which was dismissed by 
Single Judge. On appeal, Division Bench held that applicant was entitled to 
G compassionate appointment in terms of rules and regulations which was in 
existence before coming into force of Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate 
Appointment) Rules, 1994. Being dissatisfied with the order, authorities filed 
the present appeal. 
H 
576 
STATE OF J & K v. SAJAD AHMED MIR 
577 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: I. The Single Judge of High Court was right in dismissing the 
petition on the ground of delay and lac hes by holding that the applicant had 
not done anything for a considerable period after March, 1996 when his claim 
was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very 
much aware of it. (581-G-H( 
B 
2.1. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors is 
open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete 
with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. This 
general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances C 
demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family 
suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of 
bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no 
necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour 
to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 
14 of the Constitution. (582-B-DI 
D 
2.2. The father of the applicant died in March, 1987. When the Division 
Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date 
of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and 
material fact, which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of E 
the employee. Moreover, the Single Judge was also right in holding that 
though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant 
immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there 
was inter-departmental communication in 1999. (583-G, H; 584-AJ 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr., 11996( 5 SCC 308: p 
AIR (1996) SC 2445; Life lnsumnce Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra 
Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr., ( 1994) 2 SCC 718; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of 
Haryana & Ors., ( 19941 4 SCC 138; Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of 
India & Ors .. 11989) 4 SCC 468 and Commissioner of Public Instructions & 
Ors. v. KR. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6642 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.2002 of the High Court of 
Jammu and Kashmir in L.P.A. No. 131/2000. 
S. Mehdi Imam and Anis Suhrawardy for the Appellants. 
G 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
R.C. Pandey, R.D. Rathore and K.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State 
against the judgment and order dated December 2, 2002 passed by the Division 
B Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in L.P.A. No. 131 of2000. By 
the said order, the Divisio

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