STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SHRI UMRAO SINGH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 29-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v 
SHRI UMRAO SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1994 
(M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ AND S. MOHAN, J.] 
Service Law-Rajasthan Recrnitment of Dependents of the Government 
Servants (Dying while in service) Rules, 1975: Rule 5. 
A 
B 
Compassionate appointmenr-Claim for higher post subsequent to ap-
C 
pointment-Held once a post is accepted. right to be considered is consum-
mated-No further or second consideration for higher post would 
arise-Direction by High Court to consider claim for higher post held not 
justified. 
Practice & Procedure : Appeal against High Court-Delay in filing D 
Appeal occasioned due to administrative exigencies-Held properly explained 
and condoned. 
The respondent's father died In harness while working as Sub-In· 
spector, C.I.D. (Special Branch). Therefore, the respondent was appointed E 
as lower Division respondent Clerk on compassionate ground. After 
having accepted the said appointment, he sought appointment as Sub·ln· 
spector but that was denied. He filed a writ petition in the High Court and 
a single Judge of the High Court directed consideration of his candidature 
for appointment to the post Sub-Inspector in accordance with the proviso 
to Rule 5 of Rajasthan Recruitment of Departments of the Government 
F 
Servants (Dying while In Service) Rules, 1975. The appellant-State 
preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench which was. dismissed 
on the ground of delay. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf 
of the appellant-State that (I) the failure to condone the delay by Division 
Bench has resulted in grave Injustice; (ii) the respondent having accepted G 
the appointment as a clerk cannot lay a further claim to a higher post of 
Suh· Inspector. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The failure to condone to delay which had been caused on H 
67 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
account of administrative exigencies has resulted in injustice because the 
judgment of the Single Judge constitutes a bad precedent. Therefore, the 
delay is condoned. [70-C-D] 
B 
2. The respondent accepted the appointment as L.D.C. Therefore, his 
right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was 
consummated. Once the right has consummated any further or second 
consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not 
arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of 'endless compassion'. [70-E-F] 
3. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector or Police is one thing, 
C 
the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called 
eligibility, the Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view 
that direction be issued under proviso to Rule S of the Rajasthan Recruit· 
ment of Dependents of the Government Servants (Dying while in Service) 
Rules, 1975 which has no application to the facts of this case. Though the 
direction was only to consider the case of Respondent yet the High Court 
D was not legally justified in directing a further consideration of the candida· 
ture of the respondent for the post of Sub-Inspector. [70-F, 71-C] 
E 
State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali JT [1994) 4 SC 184; relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6492/94. 
From the Judgment and order dated 20.9.93 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.S.A 481/1993. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. 
F 
Sushi! Kumar Jain for the Respondent. 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MOHAN, J. Leave granted. 
G 
The facts lie in a narrow compass. 
The respondent's father died while he was serving as a Sub- Inspec-
tor, C.l.D. (Special Branch) in the year 1988. The respondent applied to 
the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground. He was ap-
pointed as Lower Division Clerk on 14.12.1989 on compassionate ground. 
H After having accepted the appointment as L.D.C., he sought appointment 
STATE v. U. SINGH [MOHAN, J.] 
69 
as Sub-Inspector. That was denied. Aggrieved by the denial, he preferred A 
S.B.C.W.P. No. 3875 of 1992. By judgment dated 6.8.1992, the learned 
Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan directed consideration of his 
candidature for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance 
with the proviso to Rule 5 of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of the 
Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter B 
referred to as 'the Rules'). The consideration was directed to be effected 
within six months from the date of the judgment. Assailing the corre

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