STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus MOHD REHAN KHAN

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 08-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
141
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
MOHD REHAN KHAN
(Civil Appeal No. 5212 of 2022)
AUGUST 08, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in
Harness (Tenth Amendment) Rules 2014– r.5(1)(i), proviso to –
Eligibility criteria and additional qualifications– Non-fulfillment of
additional qualification – Respondent appointed on compassionate
grounds, terminated – High Court directed appellants to consider
his candidature for appointment to an alternate post – On appeal,
held: An employee appointed on compassionate grounds is not
granted an exception from the service conditions that have to be
complied under the relevant Rules – In the present case, though the
respondent possessed the educational qualification prescribed under
the Rules, he did not acquire the qualifications prescribed under
the provisos to r.5(1)(i) – He ought to have possessed both the
eligibility criteria and qualifications to continue in the said post –
Having been granted an appointment to the post of Assistant, the
respondent was required to fulfill the dual conditions of obtaining
a certificate of proficiency in computers (which he did) and to achieve
the requisite speed in typing within a stipulated period (which he
did not despite two opportunities) – His termination due to failure
to clear the typing test was in terms of the stipulation contained in
the order of appointment and provisions of r.5(1) – Further,
appointment to an alternate post cannot be directed by High Court
– View taken by the High Court relying on its earlier decision in
Mukul Sagar case is erroneous as it does not lay down correct
principle of law, however the appointment which may have been
granted in the said case not to be disturbed – Impugned judgment
of Division Bench and the judgment of Single Judge set aside –
Writ petition filed by respondent before High Court is dismissed, as
also in CA No.5213 of 2022.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 141
141
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Rules relating
to, interpretation of – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16 – Held:
Rules relating to compassionate appointment must be interpreted
bearing in mind that it is an exception to the principle of equality of
opportunity – Compassionate appointments provide an entry-level
concession – The appointment cannot be used to seek subsequent
concessions merely because the appointment was made on
compassionate grounds – Any concession subsequently provided,
unless the rules stipulate, would be violative of the principle
envisaged in Articles 14, 16 – Appointment through compassionate
grounds only grants the family of the employee who dies in harness
an entry into the services, which is one of the many modes of
appointment – Once appointed, all the employees irrespective of
the mode of appointment are to be treated alike, unless the relevant
Rules stipulate otherwise.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Nature, object
of – Held: There is no vested right to compassionate appointment –
It is an exception to Article 16 which embodies the principle of
equality of opportunity in matters of public employment –
Compassionate appointment is offered to a person belonging to the
family of a deceased employee who has died in harness to tide over
the financial crisis resulting from the death of the wage earner of
the family – Terms on which compassionate appointment is offered
under the rules or scheme governing compassionate appointment
have to be complied with– Constitution of India – Article 16.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Appointment to
an alternate post – Impermissibility of – Respondent was appointed
on a temporary basis in Class III post – Terminated – High Court
directed appointment to an alternate post in Class-IV post on
compassionate grounds – Held: Appointment to an alternate post
cannot be directed by the High Court – This would permit entry into
a Class IV post at the expense of others who may be waiting in line
for compassionate appointment or for which persons who seek
appointment in open competition would be eligible.
General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain,
(2008) 8 SCC 475 :  [2008] 12 SCR 576; V. Sivamurthy
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
v. State of AP, (2008) 13 SCC; Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan
v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 205 : [2009] 9 SCR 791;
State of Jharkhand v. Shiv K

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