Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL N0. 7047 OF 2022
(Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) No. 20935/2021)
Delhi Jal Board …Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Devi …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2871/2021, by which the High Court has
dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant – Delhi Jal
Board and has confirmed the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1420/2017, by which the
Signature Not Verified
Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the candidature of the
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2022.10.19
17:18:31 IST
Reason:
1
respondent for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), the original
opponent - Delhi Jal Board has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the respondent herein applied for compassionate
appointment of her daughter in the Delhi Jal Board – the appellant
herein for the post of LDC. The said application was made on
23.03.2010. That by order dated 01.05.2012, the respondent’s daughter
was appointed as Assistant Meter Reader considering her qualification at
the time when application for compassionate appointment was made.
According to the respondent, she was eligible for the post of LDC.
2.1 The respondent then approached the Tribunal by way of Original
Application No. 1420/2017 claiming the appointment of her daughter on
the post of LDC. It was the case on behalf of the respondent that by the
time the application for compassionate appointment came to be
considered in 2012, her daughter acquired the requisite qualification for
the post of LDC, i.e., Graduation. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of
the respondent that she ought to have been appointed on the post of
LDC. The Tribunal accepted the same and directed the appellant –
Delhi Jal Board to appoint the respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.
The order passed by the Tribunal dated 3.5.2019 in O.A. No. 1420/2017
was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court at the
instance of the appellant herein. By the impugned judgment and order,
2
the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, which has given rise
to the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that qualification for the post of LDC was
Graduation. It is submitted that admittedly when the respondent applied
for appointment on compassionate grounds for the post of LDC, i.e.,
23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and therefore she was not
having the requisite qualification for the post of LDC.
3.1 It is submitted that subsequent acquiring of the qualification for the
post of LDC cannot be considered and the qualification prevailing when
the application for compassionate appointment was made is required to
be considered. It is submitted that therefore both, the Tribunal and the
High Court have committed a very serious error in directing the appellant
to appoint respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.
4. While opposing the present appeal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent has made the following submissions:
i) that the time limit for making appointment on compassionate
grounds was five years. Therefore, when the respondent’s daughter
acquired the requisite qualification for the post of the LDC within five
years, she ought to have been appointed on the post of LDC,
considering acquisition of the graduation qualification within five years;
3
ii) that as per the Policy for compassionate appointments, while
considering the appointment on compassionate grounds, only bar with
respect to age shall be applicable and not with respect to educational
qualification. In support of above, reliance is placed on clause 6 (A &
B) of the Policy which provides for Exemptions and Relaxations, while
making compassionate appointments; and
iii) that the relevant date for considering the educational qualification
shall be the date on which the application for compassionate
appointment was considered and not the date on which the application
for compassionate appointment was made.
4.1 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
considering the facts narrated hereinabove both, the Tribunal and the
High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellant to
appoint the respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.
6. When the respondent made an application for compassionate
appointment on 23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and the
requisite qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was
Graduation. Therefore, the date on which the respondent applied for
compassionate appointment, her daughter was not having the requisite
qualification for the post of LDC. As per settled position of law, the
4
qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate
appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the
application for compassionate appointment is considered.
7. The submission on behalf of the respondent that as the application
for compassionate appointment was permissible within a period of five
years and the respondent’s daughter acquired the graduation
qualification within a period of five years, the respondent’s daughter can
be said to be eligible for appointment on the post of LDC. The aforesaid
submission cannot be accepted. Once the application for compassionate
appointment is made, the qualification which the applicant possess on
the date of application is to be considered. Similarly, the submission on
behalf of the respondent that for compassionate appointments, only the
bar with respect to age shall be applicable and not with respect to
educational qualification cannot be accepted. The compassionate
appointment is required to be made on the post considering the
educational qualification of the applicant on the date of
application/dependant of the deceased employee. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the department rightly appointed
the respondent’s daughter on the post of Assistant Meter Reader
considering her qualification at the time of making the application for
compassionate appointment.
5
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated
05.03.2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2871/2021 and that of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 03.05.2019
passed in O.A. No. 1420/2017 directing the appellant herein to consider
the candidature of the respondent’s daughter for the post of LDC are
unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and
are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Original
Application No. 1420/2017 preferred by the respondent herein for
appointment of her daughter on the post of LDC stands dismissed.
9. The instant appeal is allowed accordingly. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
……………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.
OCTOBER 19, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
6