Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals by special leave arising from different orders of the High Court of Patna, where the High Court had interfered with compassionate appointments made by the Government of Bihar. The litigation concerned dependent sons and daughters of deceased government employees who died in harness and were awaiting compassionate appointments. The Government of Bihar had adopted a policy decision to appoint all such candidates to Class IV posts irrespective of their qualifications. The Co-operative Department prepared a long list of persons awaiting compassionate appointments. A committee consisting of the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Additional Secretary and Registrar was constituted to identify vacancies and recommend candidates. At the relevant time, more than 40 Class IV posts were available, and the committee recommended appointment of all candidates as Class IV employees. Twelve Class III posts were available but were kept reserved for promotion of existing Class IV employees. Some candidates who were appointed as Class IV employees approached the High Court in 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 Class III posts either by promotion or fresh appointment in accordance with rules. The review petition filed by the State was dismissed after considerable delay, and appointments were directed to be made by April 30, 1992. The State did not appeal against that order, which thus became final. Following that order, similar directions were given in respect of different persons who had filed separate writ petitions. In some cases, to comply with the High Court orders and avoid contempt, the government upgraded Class IV posts to Class III posts and confirmed candidates as Class III employees. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was right in giving directions to appoint the compassionate appointment candidates afresh or promote them to Class III posts, contrary to the government's policy. The State argued that there is no vested right to a particular appointment on compassionate grounds; the policy to appoint all candidates to Class IV posts was reasonable and justified; and 12 Class III posts were legitimately reserved for promotion of existing Class IV employees. The State further argued that the High Court directions, if complied with, would convert all Class IV posts into Class III posts, violating the discipline of service. The respondents relied on the High Court orders directing appointment or promotion to Class III posts. The Supreme Court held that there is no right vested in the candidates for a particular appointment on compassionate grounds. The principle adopted by the Government could not be said to be unjustified or illegal. The earlier High Court order was wrongly made and could not form the basis for issuing further directions. The Court observed that compliance with the High Court directions would result in all Class IV posts being converted into Class III posts, which is against the discipline of service. Accordingly, the High Court was not justified in issuing directions in all the cases for appointment to Class III posts. The appeals were allowed without costs. The Court directed that the candidates' cases would be considered and appointments made against available vacancies in the order of seniority to Class IV posts. The special leave petition SLP(C) No. 18334 of 1995 was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - No Vested Right to Particular Post - Government of Bihar Policy on Compassionate Appointments; no specific statute cited - Dependent sons and daughters of deceased employees who died in harness were appointed on compassionate ground to Class IV posts irrespective of qualifications; 12 Class III posts were reserved for promotion of existing Class IV employees; committee of Secretary, Additional Secretary and Registrar identified available Class IV vacancies. Held that no candidate has a vested right to a particular appointment on compassionate grounds and the government's principle cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal; High Court directions to appoint or promote to Class III posts were set aside and cases directed to be considered against available Class IV vacancies in order of seniority (Order). B) Judicial Review - Interference with Executive Policy - Discipline of Service - High Court orders on compassionate appointments - If the High Court directions were complied with, all Class IV posts would be converted into Class III posts, which is against the discipline of service; Held that the High Court was not justified in issuing directions in all cases for appointment to Class III post; appeals allowed without costs (Order).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in giving directions to appoint compassionate appointment candidates afresh or give them promotion to Class III posts despite the government's policy of appointment to Class IV posts and reservation of Class III posts for promotion.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed without costs; High Court directions set aside; cases to be considered against available vacancies in order of seniority for Class IV posts; SLP(C) No. 18334 of 1995 dismissed.
Law Points
- No vested right to particular compassionate appointment
- Government policy decision cannot be said unjustified or illegal if reasonable
- High Court cannot convert Class IV posts to Class III against service discipline
- Class III posts may be reserved for promotion of existing Class IV employees
- compassionate appointments to be made against available vacancies in order of seniority
