THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. versus SAMSUZ ZOHA ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 22-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.li " 
it 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
SAMSUZ ZOHA ETC. ,• : 
MARCH 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
service Law : 
.~ . ' 
Appointment on compassionate grounds-Co-Operative Department of 
Govemment of Bihar-Vacancies of Class IV. and , Class III posts---State C 
Govemment taking a policy decision' to make all appointments on compas-
sionate grounds to class IV posts irrespective of qualiftcations of individuals 
and reserving class III posts to be filled by "promotion-Some of the can-
didates appointed to class. IV posts filing 'a writ petiiion in High Court for 
appointment to class III posts-High Court directing the· Government to 
appoint the petitioners to. class III posts either by promotion or by fresh D 
appointmenl-Held, High Court not justified in·giving directiims---Ihere is no 
right vested in •the candidate.i for particular appointment 011 compassionate· 
grounds---Ihe principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be 
'-I 
unjustified or illegal. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7086-87 E 
of 1996 Etc: 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.95 .and 26.10.94 of the 
Patna High Court in M.J.C. No. 727/95 and C.W.J.C. No. 8550 of 1993. 
~ ' . . . 
'· ' 
. 
. . 
. 
Altaf Ahmed, Additionai"Solicitor .General: Anil Kumar Jha, M.M. 
Kashyap, B.B. Singh, S.B. Upadhyay and Gopal Singh, for the appearing 
parties. 
· The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 2383-2384 of 1996.,. " 
We have heard learned. counsel on both sides. 
F 
G 
· · A rather unfortunate situation has been created by the .order~ of the 
High Court in interfe~ing with the appointmenis made on compassionate H 
• 
807 
. 
. 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A ground by the Government. These appeals by special leave arise from 
different orders of the High Court of Patna. The first batch taken up is of 
appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2383-84/96. In this case the Govern-
ment had resolved to appoint on compassionate ground the dependent son 
or daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness. A long list of 
B persons awaiting such appointments was prepared by the Co-operative 
Department. The Department recommended candidates for certain posts 
depending upon the quatifications etc. A committee was constituted by the 
Government consisting of the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Addi-
tional Secretary and the Registrar of the Co-operative Department. The 
Committe.e had first identified the vacant posts and then decided to make 
C recommendations of the candidates. At that time since more than 40 posts 
of Class JV was available, the committee had recommended appointment 
of all the candidates as Class JV employees. It is also seen that 12 posts in 
Class III were available but they kept reserved for promotion from existing 
Class IV employees. The candidates who were· appointed as Class JV 
D approached the High Court by way of writ petition the first of which is 
CWJC No: 739/1991 titled Ghidharya Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. 
The High Court by order dated August 26, 1991 directed the respondents 
to consider afresh their appointments to any one of the Class III posts 
either by promotion or fresh appointment whichever was possible in ac-
cordance with the rules and regulations. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents 
E 
filed a Review Petition. After considerable delay, the Review Petition came 
to be dismissed and appointments were directed to be made by April 30, 
1992. Consequently, the appellant did not come in appeal to this Court 
against that order which thus has become final. Following the above order 
directions have been given in respect of different persons who had filed 
F separate writ petitions. Jn some of the cases the appeals have now came to 
be filed before us. 
The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court 
is right in giving directions to appoint them afresh or give them promo-
tion? It is not in dispute that there is no right vested in the candidates for 
G particular appointment on compassionate grounds. The State had taken 
policy decision to appoint all the candidates irrespective of the qualifica-
tions as Class IV post and, therefore, the committee consisting of the 
Secretary, Addi. Secretary and the Registrar met and decided the principle 
that all the ~vailable posts in Class JV should be made available to the 
H candidates in the awaiting list for appointment on c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.