THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS versus REVAT SINGH

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 20-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 2 S.C.R. 249 
THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD 
A 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS 
v. 
REVATSINGH 
(CivilAppeal No.2061 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service law - Compassionate appointment - Grant of, 
when candidate ineligible for the post - On facts, father 
employed as driver with the appellant-State Road Transport C 
Corporation, died in harness - Son-respondent sought 
compassionate appointment on the post of driver but his 
application was rejected since he did not qualify for the post 
- However, the High Court directed the appellant to consider 0 
his case against the post of driver on compassionate ground 
- Held: Court and tribunals do not have the power to issue 
direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation 
of eligibility or in contravention thereof- Thus, order passed 
by the High Court is set aside as the respondent was not E 
qualified for the post. 
l.G.[Karmik] and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi2007 
(5) SCR 978: (2007) 6 SCC 162; Steel Authority of India 
Limited v. Madhusudan Das 2008 ( 14) SCR 824 : (2008) 15 
SCC 560; State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T Tiwari 2012 (7) 
F 
SCR 1072: (2012) 9 SCC 545- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2007 (5) SCR 978 
2008 (14) SCR 824 
2012 (7) SCR 1072 
249 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
G 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2061 of2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil 
B Special Appeal (W) No. 428 of2014 
S. K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam for the 
Appellants. 
Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1.This appeal is directed 
against judgment and order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in D.B. Civil Special 
D Appeal (W) No. 428 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench 
declined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single 
Judge. 
E 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and 
perused the record. 
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father 
of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter 
referred to as the "Corporation"). He died in harness on 
F 26.6.2006. The respondent sought compassionate 
appointment on the post of driver. His educational qualification 
was 81h standard pass. The appellants considered the 
application for appointment on compassionate ground, and 
rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was not 
G qualified either for the post of driver or that of conductor. The 
respondent was accordingly communicated by the appellants 
vide letter dated 18.1.2008. The respondent made further 
correspondence in the matter after obtaining driving licence 
on 23.1.2007. However, said licence was not for heavy 
H vehicles. When the appellants did not accept request for 
THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. 251 
REVAT SINGH [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
appointment against the post of driver, the respondent filed A 
writ petition no. 1892 of 2011 which was allowed by the learned 
Single Judge vide order dated 29.1.2014, directing the 
appellant to consider case of the respondent for the post of 
driver. 
B 
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, 
the appellant filed intra court appeal, but the same was 
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide 
impugned order dated 1.5.2014 declining to interfere with the 
order of learned Single Judge, and observed that the said order c 
advances the cause of justice considering the hardship faced 
by the family of deceased employee. However, it was further 
observed by the Division Bench that the order would be treated 
to have been passed in the special facts and circumstances 
of the case. 
D 
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Rajasthan State 
Road Corporation - submitted before this Court that the High 
Court has erred in law in directing the appellant to consider 
the case of respondent for appointment against the post of 
driver on the compassionate ground. It is specifically pointed 
E 
out that the respondent is not qualified for the post of driver as 
he is neither matriculate nor possessed driving licence for 
heavy vehicles. 
6. Shri Virender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the 
F 
respondent, did not deny that th

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