Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6607/2009 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6607 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
VIJAY
NATHALAL VACHHANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance :
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS
KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2
- 3.
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 23/07/2009
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate
ground on the death of his father, who has died in the year 1983.
2. It
is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died on
06/01/1983 and the petitioner after becoming major made the
application for compassionate appointment on 06/11/1997. It is the
case on behalf of the petitioner that the said application of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected and, therefore,
the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Identical
question came to be considered by this Court in Special Civil
Application Nos. 1678/1997 and 1903/2005 and this Court has
relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
STATE OF J& K ORS Vs. SAJAD AHMED MIR reported in (2006)
5 SCC 766 and in the case of NATIONAL HYDROELICTRIC POWER
CORPORATION AND ANR Vs. NANAK CHAND AND ANR reported in 2004
AIR SCW 6339 rejecting the applications, which were filed
belatedly.
4. In
the decision of NATIONAL HYDROELICTRIC POWER CORPORATION (Supra)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that …… it is to be seen
that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of
recruitment, but merely an exception to the requirement regarding
appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits.
Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned, his
family is not deprived of means of livelihood. The object is to
enable the family to get over sudden financial crises .
5. In
the decision of SAJAD AHMED MIR (Supra) it is observed that
the compassionate appointment is exception to the general rule and
normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors
should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to
apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article
14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an
appointment should be made to public office. It is also further
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this general rule should
not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand,
such as, death of the sole breadwinner and livelihood of the family
suffering because of the setback. It is also further observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that once it is proved that inspite of the
death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period
is over, there is no necessity to say goodbye to the normal
rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the
interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14. In
the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The
Division Bench set aside the said order and passed an order of
appointment on compassionate ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set
aside the order passed by the Division Bench and has observed as
above.
6. Considering
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SAJAD AHMED
MIR (Supra) and the facts of the present case that more than 14
years have been passed after the death of the deceased employee and
the family is surviving for all these 14 years, as observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no necessity to say goodbye to
the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to petitioner at
the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of
Article 14. Even to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner
on compassionate ground today i.e. after a period of 14 years on the
death of the employee would be against the object and purpose of
compassionate appointment. Under the circumstances, no direction can
be issued directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate ground after 14 years of the death of the deceased
employee.
7. In
view of the above, the present Special Civil Application deserves to
be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top