The present respondents filed an application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 before the Orissa High Court. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court held that the decision of the authorities rejecting
the prayer for compassionate appointment was not in order.
Direction was given to appoint the present Respondent No. 2 within a particular
time with the condition that Respondent No. 2 will financially support Respondent
No.1 so long as she is alive.
The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the
findings recorded by the High Court are erroneous. The rejection
of the claim100 for compassionate appointment was done after
considering the report made by the concerned authority which conducted
due and proper inquiry120 about the financial status. CAT considered the relevant aspects
and rightly held that the prayer for compassionate appointment was not to be
accepted. The High Court erroneously placed emphasis on the certificate
issued by the Member of Parliament and directed for appointment. Such a
direction could not have been given. At the most, the High Court could
have directed for consideration of the case of respondent No. 2 along with
similarly placed persons. In any event, no evidence was led200 to show that the findings recorded
by the inquiring authority were erroneous. In response, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the scheme of the
authorities clearly indicates that if a certificate is issued by a Sarpanch or240 a Member of Parliament or a
Member of Legislative Assembly, then the request for compassionate
appointment may be entertained and considered on merits. In this case, undisputedly,
a Member of Parliament had given a certificate which was not shown to be
wrong. We find that it has been clearly indicated in the report about
sufficient income of all members of300 the family and the prima facie absence of any material to
show that the members had separated. The respondents remained content by
producing certificate of Member of Parliament. No other material was placed for
consideration to contradict conclusions recorded in the inquiry report.
Great emphasis has been laid by the respondents on the scheme of
compassionate appointment, more particularly in360 cases where there is already an
earning member in the family, but if Sarpanch, MP or MLA certified that the
employed member is living separately and not referring any financial
assistance to the main family, the requests of400 compassionate appointment may be
entertained and considered on merits. The same is not of any assistance to the
respondents. The quoted portion was one of the points on which clarification
was sought for. In any event, there was not even a remote suggestion
that the certificate of MP or MLA would be determinative. It would be,
therefore, appropriate to direct the Tribunal to re-consider the
matter. The parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of480 their respective stand. It goes
without saying that CAT, after considering the relevant materials, shall
dispose of the500 matter in accordance with law. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. However, the High
Court was clearly in error in directing appointment, without reference to the
presence of similarly situated persons who were seeking compassionate
appointment. No direction could have been given by the High Court for
appointment as such within a time limit and for asking extension of time
to comply with the order, till the concerned respondent was appointed. At the
most, the High Court could have asked for consideration of the case of the
concerned respondent600 along with other applicants for compassionate appointment, if
any, in terms of the operative scheme. The appeal is, accordingly,
disposed of.
In the present case, the appellant is
a Saini declared as the Other Backward Class in the State of Haryana
notification dated 5.2.1991. This notification, inter alia, provides that
persons belonging to the Saini caste and residing in the state of Haryana will
be considered as forming a part of Other Backward Classes in the state of Haryana.
Two advertisements bearing No.1 of 1995 and No.7 of 1995 were issued by
the Subordinate Service Selection700 Board, Haryana for recruitment of
candidates to various posts. One of the posts so advertised was that of lecturers
in720 political
science. Under Advertisement No.1 of 1995, 15 posts of lecturers in political
science were advertised of which one was reserved for backward classes. Under
Advertisement No.7 of 1995, inter alia, 48 posts of lectures in political
science were advertised out of which 10 were reserved for backward classes.
Out of these 10, six were reserved for backward classes in the "A" category
and four were reserved for backward classes in the 'B' category.
After the
Advertisement No. 1 of 1995 and before800 Advertisement No. 7 of 1995, instructions were issued by the
Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to all heads of820 departments and other authorities stating that the reservation for backward
classes was enhanced from 10 per cent to 27 per cent and that amongst backward
classes, it was decided to create two blocks, Block 'A' and Block ‘B’. Instructions
were also issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana that 16 per cent
of seats would be reserved for backward classes in Block `A' and 11 per cent
would be reserved for backward classes in Block 'B'. There was also900 a reservation of 10 per cent for ex-servicemen
and 3 per cent for physically handicapped. Castes forming part of Block 'A'
and castes forming part of Block 'B' were enumerated. Saini caste was in Block
'B'. That is why, the Advertisement no. 7 of 1995 divided the ten seats
for backward classes into six seats for backward class960 candidates in Block 'A' and 4
seats for backward class candidates in Block 'B'. After these instructions,
therefore, the appellant formed a part of Block 'B' amongst backward classes. The
appellant applied for the post of lecturer in political science.1000
