M KENDRA DEVI vs. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION       CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).   1918 ­ 1919  OF 2022      (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.31144­31145 of 2013) M. KENDRA DEVI                  ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS          ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  1920 ­ 1922    OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.35746­35748 of 2015) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.03.10 15:42:46 IST Reason: 2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the officers who are direct recruits selected as Assistant Engineers after going through 1 the   process   of   selection   held   by   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service Commission(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “Commission”), claiming   their   seniority   qua   such   of   the   candidates   who   were appointed   as   Assistant   Engineers   at   different   points   of   time   as compassionate appointees and prayed that in the seniority list of Assistant   Engineers   which   came   to   be   published   by   the   State st authorities as on 1  January 2004, the present batch of appellants who are direct recruits appointed as Assistant Engineers be ranked senior to the candidates who were appointed as Assistant Engineers on compassionate ground.   3. Their grievance primarily is that after the process of selection was initiated by issuance of an advertisement by the Commission, such   of   the   candidates   who   had   either   not   participated   in   the process of open selection or had failed to qualify but because of losing their breadwinner, have been directly appointed as Assistant Engineers   as   compassionate   appointees   and   are   placed   en   bloc senior   to   the   direct   recruits   Assistant   Engineers   and   that   is   in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and of Rule 35 of 2 the   Tamil   Nadu   State   and   Subordinate   Services   Rules, 1955(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 1955”).  4. Seniority   either   inter   se   or   between   direct   recruits   and promotees   or   recruitment   made   by   different   sources   is   being governed by a statutory scheme of rules laying down the principles according   to   which   the   seniority   list   has   to   be   determined   but experience shows that it has never been finalized and always remain a subject matter of challenge and that challenge is not restricted upto the High Courts, but such challenges are always settled after the final judgment of this Court and this creates a lot of disharmony amongst the officers and since this Court is also not in a position to settle such  matters   at the   earliest,   delay  remains  inevitable  and becomes   fatal   to   the   right   of   individual   and   indeed   impairs   the efficiency,  commitment and   devotion with which  the  employee is supposed to work and discharge his public duty to the satisfaction of the authority. 5. The case before us is also a live illustration of this kind. The service condition of the Assistant Engineers who became member of the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service are governed by the 3 Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service and the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer   with   which   we   are   presently concerned is indicated in the Schedule appended thereto in category (5) which provides the modes of recruitment to the service which reads as under:­ 

4

5

6. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment impugned passed nd by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Madras   dated   22 January, 2013.  They are direct recruits of first batch selected after going through the process of selection initiated in the year 1991­ 1992   and   the   second   batch   in   the   year   1993­1995   by   the Commission but they were appointed in the year 1995 and 1998 and their names are mentioned at Sr. Nos.194, 288, 336, 456 and 571 in st the seniority list of Assistant Engineers as on 1   January, 2004 6 th published by the respondent State on 15  April, 2004 which came to be determined in terms of Rule 35 (aa) of the Rules, 1955. 7. At the same time, the Government issued G.O. No.225 dated th 15   February, 1972 in the first instance providing compassionate appointment in the services which are outside the purview of the Commission but that came to be later amended by G.O. No.1119 th   dated   20 May,   1981   permitting   to   appoint   qualified professionals/dependents on temporary basis to the technical posts coming under the purview of the Commission with a proviso that such   compassionate   appointees   have   to   appear   later   before   the Commission in the open competition for regular appointment. But th   G.O. No.1119 dated 20 May, 1981 came to be further modified by th G.O.   No.156   dated   16   July,   1993   permitting   compassionate appointees who are technically qualified dependents to be appointed on regular basis or such of the compassionate appointees who are appointed prior thereto, to get their service regularized after getting concurrence from the Commission in terms of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954. 7  8. In   consequence   thereof,   such   of   the   candidates   who   were temporarily   appointed   on   compassionate   basis   pursuant   to   G.O. th th dated 20   May, 1981 stood regularized w.e.f. 16   July, 1993, the date on which the revised G.O. became effective and those who are th appointed subsequent to G.O. dated 16  July, 1993 were considered to be regular appointees from the date of initial appointment as Assistant Engineers on compassionate ground. 9. All candidates who were appointed on compassionate ground as Assistant Engineers are falling under two categories:­ (i) those compassionate   appointees   as   Assistant   Engineers   who   were th appointed   initially   on   temporary   basis   after   20   May,   1981   and th stood   regularized   w.e.f.   16   July,   1993   and   became   member   of th service; and (ii) those who are compassionate appointees after 16 July, 1993 and their initial appointment itself is considered to be regular   appointment   for   all   practical   purposes   and   they   became member of service from the date of entry into service. The extracts of th th G.O. No.1119 dated 20   May, 1981 and G.O. No.156 dated 16 July, 1993 are reproduced hereunder:­ 8 “GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU        ABSTRACT Employment Assistants – Employment assistance to the Dependants of deceased   Government   Servants   –   Appointment   to   the   dependants according to their educational qualifications – Orders – Issued LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT  G.O.Ms. No. 1119  Dated : 20.05.1981  Read Again  1. G.O.Ms.No. 225, Labour and Employment dated 15.02.72  2. G.O.Ms.No. 560, Labour and Employment dated 03.08.77.  Read also:  3. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission  Letter No. 8301 / B2 / 77 dated 28.12.77.  4. Govt. Letter No. 157 / N­I / 78­5, dated 22.07.78.  5. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission  Letter No. Lr.No. 8301 / B2 /77 dated 02.09.78.  ORDER:­  In the G.O. first read above, the Government have permitted the recruitment   of   son   /   unmarried   daughter   and   near   relative   of   the Government   servant   who   died   in   harness   without   reference   to Employment Exchange to all the posts when fall outside the purview of the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission   subject   to   certain conditions.  2.  In   the   G.O.   second   read   above,   the   above   concession   was extended to families of the deceased Government Servants who died in harness prior to 15­2­72 and the concession was made applicable for the   posts   within   the   purview   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service Commission also. It was also ordered therein that the dependant of the deceased Government servant can be appointed in any department if the qualifications of the applicant do not permit his / her appointment to a post in the same department in which his parent or husband or 9 wife served or if he/she possesses better qualifications for appointment in the outside department provided the Head of the other Department also gives his concurrence. The dependant should however apply for appointment only to the office in which the Government servant was in service at the time of his death, so that office can verify the facts in the petition like, date of death, the indigent circumstances of the family etc. In the Government letter fourth read above, the Tamil Nadu Public Service   Commission   was   informed   that   the   indigent   circumstances under with the family of the Government servant died in harness and the destitute nature might warrant the appointment commensurate to the extent possible with the Educational / Technical qualification of the individual and that the appointment could be made available in any department, and hence the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 560 Labour and Employment dt. 3­8­77 in this regard need no revision. 3. In the letter third and fifth read above, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has express its view that the subject of the Government is to provide immediate means of livelihood when the bread­winner dies in harness and that it would be more than sufficient if a close relative of the deceased is provided with employment in a POST NOT HIGHER THAN THAT OF A JUNIOR ASSISTANT. The commission has also held that it would however, be open to the candidate, who is qualified for a higher post, to apply to it through normal course. The Commission is also of the view that the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No. 560, Labour and Employment, dated 03.8.77 may result in the appointment or an individual possessing a degree outside the normal course, as Deputy Collector  or   to  similar   posts.  If a  graduate  is appointed  as Deputy Collector or Deputy Superintending of Police or to similar posts and if another  graduate  is appointed only  as Junior  Assistant  taking  into account the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased, it would   amount   to   discrimination.   The   Commission   has,   therefore, requested the Government to examine the matter in detail and issue suitable orders on the suggestion made by it.  4. The Government have carefully examined the above suggestion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. They consider that it would be proper   and   fair   to   appoint   the   candidate   with   reference   to   the qualifications   possessed   by   him   /   he   and   that   it   will   not   be administrative   expedient   to   appoint   the   candidate   possessing technical / professional Qualifications like B.E. M.B.B.S. etc., to the post   of   Junior   Assistant.   The   Government   therefore,   in   partial modification   of   the   orders   issued   in   G.O.Ms.No.   560   Labour   and 10 Employment   dt.   3.8.77   direct   that   the   dependant   of   the   deceased Government   servant   who   possess   the   technical   and   professional qualification be appointed temporarily without referring to Employment Exchange and Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the initial or starting category of post for which his qualifications are the minimum prescribed, either in the department where the parent at the time of his / her death or in any other departments, in which such posts exist, by way or illustration, if the dependants of the deceased Government Servants possess B.E. or M.B.B.S. or B.Sc (Agri) Degree they may be appointed as Assistant Engineer, Civil Assistant Surgeons and Deputy Agricultural   Officers   respectively   temporarily.   Like   wise   Diploma holders   will   be   appointed   to   the   lowest   category   in   the   concerned subordinate service. All such candidates subsequently shall apply to the   TNPSC   in   the   normal   channel   and   get   selected   for   regular appointment in the post. As regards the dependants of the deceased Government servants who possess suitable requisite qualification other than   technical   /professional   they   shall   be   appointed   as   Junior Assistant regularly without reference to Employment Exchange subject to the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission being obtained under the latter of regulation 16(b) of the TNPSC regulation 1954.  5) This order take effect from the issue of the Government order.  Sd/­  Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department         (BY ORDER OF THE GOVENOR)  R. VARADARAJULU, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.  To,  The All Heads of Department.” “ GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU  ABSTRACT  PUBLIC   SERVICES   –   Appointment   on   compassionate   grounds   of procedure for appointment of a dependant who possess technical / 11 professional qualifications – Regularisation of services in consultation with Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission – Orders – Issued. LABOUR AND EMPLYOMENT DEPARTMENT Dated:    G.O.Ms.No.156  16.07.93 Read:­ 1.G.O.Ms.No.1119 Labour and Employment 20.05.81  2. G.O.Ms.No.23 Labour and Employment dated 10.2.93  Read Also:­  3. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Madras Lr.no.1089/E4/92 dated 22.5.92.  * ORDER:­  In the Government order first read above it has been ordered that the dependant   of   a   deceased   Government   Servant   with   technical   or professional   qualification   be  appointed   temporarily   to  the   initial  or starting category of a post for which his qualification is the minimum prescribed in the Service Rules. It has also been ordered that such appointment would only to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, subsequently in the normal channel and get themselves selected for regular appointment in the post.  2.  The inherent risk in this procedure is the possibility of non­ selection   of   the   dependant   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service Commission in the normal channel. He/she will then lose the job and thus   defeating   the   very   purpose   for   which   this   scheme   had   been formulated. It would also run counter to the Government’s instruction that persons appointed under compassionate grounds should not be ousted.   Once   the   Government   recognise   the   need   to   provide employment   consistent   with   the   qualifications   possessed   by   the candidate, it does not seem fair to put one class of persons alone in jeopardy   merely   because   they   get   appointment   as   Engineers,   Civil Assistant Surgeons etc. on account of higher qualification possessed by them. 12 3.  The Government have re­examined the existing procedure and addressed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its views. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has in its letter read above agreed   to   dispense   with   the   distinction   mentioned   above.   The Government therefore direct that the orders issued in the G.O. first read above and these issued in Para 11 of the G.O. Second read above are partially modified to the effect that in the matter of appointment on compassionate grounds, the distinction made in respect of technically or   professionally   qualified   candidates   be   dispensed   with.   The Government   direct   that   the   dependants   of   deceased   Government Servants who are technically or professionally qualified be appointed by   the   appointing   authorities   concerned,   in   the   lowest   category   of post/ or which his/ her qualification is the minimum prescribed in the relevant service rules for direct recruitment, temporarily in the first instance, provided there are vacancies and the condition described for appointment on compassionate grounds are satisfied. Thereafter their services will be regularised with effect from date of appointment after obtaining   the   concurrence   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service Commission under latter part of Regulation 16(b) of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954.  4.  In the cases of dependants of technically and professionally qualified who have already been appointed subject to the condition that they will have to get themselves selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service   Commission,   in   the   normal   course,   their   services   may   be regularised   with   effect   from   the   date   of   issue   of   this   order,   after obtaining the concurrence of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under latter part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954.                              (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) R.VARADARAJUL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT  To  All Heads of Department.  Sd/­  Superintendent” 13 10. Despite the judgment of this Court reported in  Umesh Kumar 1 th decided on 04   May, Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others   1994   wherein   it   was   specifically   held   that   compassionate appointments shall be restricted to Class III and Class IV or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ as per the nomenclature, the State Government still   allowed   this   policy   to   continue   and   put   restrictions   on compassionate appointments confined to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ th posts by its G.O. No.61 dated 19   July, 2006. As a corollary, this Court can take a judicial notice that even after the judgment of this th Court in   Nagpal’s case   (decided on 04   May, 1994) which indeed became the law and has a binding force under Article 141 of the Constitution,   still   the   Government   failed   to   take   cognizance   and allowed this practice of making compassionate appointment to Class II posts which was completely prohibited by this Court upto the date th till G.O. stood revised on 19  July, 2006.  11. The seniority list of Assistant Engineers for the first time as on st 1  January, 2004 came to be published by the State respondent on th 15   April,   2004.   Assistant   Engineers   who   were   appointed   under 1 (1994) 4 SCC 138 14 compassionate ground initially on adhoc basis and regularized w.e.f. th 16   July, 1993 have been separately categorized and their names are shown in the seniority list from Sr. Nos.172 to 181 and the second   batch   of   candidates   who   were   appointed   under compassionate ground undisputedly after the judgment of this Court in   Nagpal’s case (supra)   in the year 1995 or thereafter, have been shown in a separate block commencing from Sr.Nos.288­307 and thereafter, the candidates who were selected through open selection in reference to the process of selection initiated in the year 1991­ 1992   came   to   be   appointed   in   the   year   1995   and   the   selection process of second batch of candidates initiated in the year 1993­ 1995   came   to   be   appointed   in   the   year   1998.   Since   the   direct recruits   of   the   said   period   became   junior   to   compassionate appointees in the seniority list published by the State respondent as st on 1  January 2004, that became the subject matter of challenge at the behest of the direct recruits Assistant Engineers by filing of their writ petitions before the High Court of Madras. 12. Initially, when the writ petitions were filed at their instance, the very   appointment   of   compassionate   appointees   as   Assistant 15 Engineers was questioned and consequently, it was prayed that writ petitioners   be   placed   higher   in   seniority   qua   compassionate appointees. 13. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the premise that the compassionate appointments were made initially th th pursuant to G.O. dated 20  May, 1981 and later by G.O. dated 16 July, 1993 and are not open to challenge at a belated stage after such a long lapse of time and that was the reason which prevailed upon the learned Single Judge not to interfere in the appointments of   compassionate   appointees   as   Assistant   Engineers   in   the interregnum   period   and   further   it   was   held   that   seniority   is consequential and assigned  from the date of regular appointment in terms of Rule 35(aa) of Rules, 1955 being strictly in accordance with the rules and needs no interference.   14. On   appeal   being   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the   present appellants   before   the   Division   Bench,   the   Division   Bench   in   its impugned   judgment  indeed  has   recorded   its  anguish  and   strong exception regarding the manner in which such appointments are made in the interregnum period to the posts of Assistant Engineer 16 on compassionate ground overlooking the judgment of this Court in Nagpal’s case   (supra) but keeping the humanitarian consideration and the fact that much water is flown in the Ganges and such compassionate   appointments   being   made   in  accordance   with  the th th G.O dated 20  May, 1981 followed by G.O. dated 16  July 1993, the Division   Bench   was   not   inclined   to   interfere   and   accordingly, nd dismissed their appeals by judgment impugned dated 22  January, 2013, which is a subject matter of challenge in appeals before us. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants with usual vehemence at their   command   submit   that   compassionate   appointments   are exception   to   the   open   selection   and   is   not   a   regular   mode   of recruitment   prescribed   under   the   statutory   scheme   of   rules   and undisputedly, the present batch of compassionate appointees were appointed on adhoc basis merely on the basis of their academic qualifications and the first batch of compassionate appointees were th regularized w.e.f. 16  July, 1993 and the second batch from the date of appointment in contradistinction to the regular selection held by the Commission and the time consumed in completing the process of   selection   was   beyond   control   of   the   applicants   and   their 17 appointments are later made on the recommendations made by the Commission   in   the   year   1995   or   1998   and   at   least,   such compassionate appointees cannot have a march over them. 16. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   compassionate appointment on the posts of Assistant Engineer from its inception was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution with a limited exception being carved out to provide solace to get over the financial   crisis   who   have   lost   their   breadwinner   and   can   be compensated by offer of compassionate appointment to the post in the category of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ and that too because of medical   invalidation   of   the   breadwinner   of   the   family   and   such compassionate appointments cannot be a boon to them and that too overstepping the rights of such of the applicants who are appointed through open selection after going through a cumbersome procedure of competitive selection process held by the Commission.  17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that second batch of compassionate appointments undisputedly, were made in the year 1995 onwards and by that time, this Court came heavily upon the Governments in making appointment on compassionate 18 ground in Class I/II services and by the intervention of this Court in Nagpal’s   case (supra) ,   it   was   finally   held   that   the   compassionate appointments shall confine to the posts of Class III and Class IV and such appointments cannot be permitted to be a boon in seeking appointments in Class I and Class II posts. 18. Learned counsel further submits that despite the judgment of this Court became a law and binding upon the State Governments under Article 141 of the Constitution, still appointments made in the year 1995 & onwards in Class II to the post of Assistant Engineer, are ex­facie illegal and the explanation tendered by the Government regarding such compassionate appointments is nothing but a lame excuse and an eye wash and the appellants became aggrieved only when   they   were   placed   higher   in   seniority   which   came   to   be st published as on 1  January, 2004 and, at least, in the given facts and circumstances, delay in no manner could be attributed to them and thus the finding which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and should be interfered by this Court.  19 19. Learned counsel for the appellants in alternate, submits that looking to the tenure of service being rendered by the compassionate appointees, there may be a reason for which their appointment may not be likely to be interfered with but at the same time, it cannot be saved at the cost of causing injury to the present appellants who were appointed through open selection which took two to three years in its finalization and their appointments made after the entry of compassionate appointees into service in no manner can be read in detriment to their interest.    At least, to this  extent,  the  present appellants are entitled to save their seniority qua compassionate appointees who have no legitimate right to be retained in service and to serve as Assistant Divisional Engineers into service. 20. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while supporting   the   finding   recorded   by   the   High   Court   under   the impugned judgment submits that compassionate appointments are made in accordance with the Government Order issued from time to time and such of the compassionate appointees joined service in the year 1985 or 1986 or thereafter and despite serving for sufficient long time, they were regularized after their suitability being adjudged 20 th pursuant to G.O. dated 16   July, 1993 and accordingly, seniority has been assigned to them and later appointees were substantively appointed   from   the   date   of   appointment.   At   the   same   time,   the present   appellants   have   joined   service   and   taken   berth   in   the department much after their service being regularized and became member   of   service.     Thus,   in   all   circumstances,   the   seniority assigned to the compassionate appointees is in accordance with the scheme of Rule 35(aa) of Rules 1955. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that after they have served for more than two to three decades and at this belated   stage,   it   may   not   be   open   for   the   appellants   either   to question their appointment or consequential seniority to tinker with and   submits   that   even   their   date   of   regularisation/date   of th appointment is 16  July, 1993 or thereafter and, at the same time, the direct recruits who are in the first batch of appointees of 1991­ 1992 are appointed in the year 1995, and the second batch of direct recruits whose selection process was initiated in the year 1993­1995 were appointed in the year 1998 or thereafter.   As such, by no stretch of  imagination,  such  direct recruits  could claim seniority 21 above the compassionate appointees who joined service much prior thereto and became member of service on being regularized by the competent authority. 22. In addition, learned counsel for the State submits that since the   compassionate   appointments   have   been   made   in   accordance with the G.O. issued by the  Government from time to time and seniority list of Assistant Engineers was accordingly published as on st 1  January 2004, which is in conformity with the scheme of Rules, 1955   and   after   being   affirmed   by   the   High   Court   under   the impugned judgment, needs no further interference by this Court. 23. After   the   matter   being   heard   by   this   Court   and   before   we conclude that matter, we called upon the State counsel by order rd dated 23  February, 2022 to file affidavit indicating as to what was the reason that after the judgment of this Court reported in  Nagpal’s th case  (supra) (decided on 04  May, 1994) wherein, it was specifically held that compassionate appointment shall be restricted to Class III and Class IV or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’, as the case may be, still the Government allowed this policy of making appointments in Class th II to continue, until withdrawn by G.O. dated 19  July, 2006. 22  24. Pursuant thereto, explanation has been furnished by the State respondent   in   paragraph   (6)  of   the   explanation   and   it  has  been stated that the judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) was communicated to the State Government by the Law Department vide th its   letter   dated   27   September,   2001   and   pursuant   thereto,  the Government   put   a   ban   on   compassionate   appointments   except leaving   certain   category   of   posts   such   as   teachers,   doctors   and th police   constabulary   being   essential   posts   by   letter   dated   29 November, 2001 and it has been informed by the learned counsel for the   State   that   four   compassionate   appointments   in  the   teachers category of Class II were made and later the decision was taken on th 19   July, 2006 to restrict the compassionate appointments to the posts of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ category. 25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 26. Before we proceed, we make it clear that notice was issued by th this   Court   on   20   September,   2013   and   the   limited   issue   that remain open for consideration is confined to inter se seniority of 23 compassionate appointees vis­a­viz direct recruits. The order dated th 20  September, 2013 passed by this Court reads as under:­ “Delay condoned.  Heard Mr. P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel in support of this special   leave   petition.   Mr.   Rao   states   that   the   petitioner   is   not challenging   the   appointment   of   respondent   Nos.5   to   37.   He, however,   states   that   though   they   were   appointed   prior   to   the petitioner,   their   regularisation   has   come   subsequent   to   her appointment by G.O. dated 26.9.1996 with retrospective effect. The petitioner is aggrieved because though these respondents have been appointed on compassionate basis, in a highly irregular manner they are being given seniority over her though she is a direct recruit on merit. He is confining this petition only to the issue of seniority. In view thereof, issue notice on the special leave petition. Issue notice on the prayer for interim relief also.” 27. It is not disputed that the post of Assistant Engineer is in Class II category and as per the scheme of Rules 1955, it is to be filled by direct recruitment or through recruitment by transfer. These are two modes of recruitment permissible for holding regular selection under the scheme of rules and so far as the appointment through direct recruitment is concerned, it is to be made strictly through open selection by the Commission.  28. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment through open selection in conformity of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and 24 the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over certain crisis and to grant relief to the family against   financial   destitution   who   have   lost   their   breadwinner. Compassionate   appointments   are   invariably   made   looking   to   the eligibility of the dependent seeking employment and the post held by the deceased who was the member of service and this Court can take a judicial notice that appointments were earlier made in Class II posts which are under purview of the Commission and that was the th reason for which this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) (decided on 04 May,   1994)   came   heavily   while   holding   that   compassionate appointment is not a vested right and held that such appointments shall be restricted to the posts in Class III and Class IV with an object  to  give   relief   to  the   family   of   the   deceased   from   financial destitution who have suddenly lost their breadwinner and to help it to get over the emergency. In  Nagpal’s case (supra), this Court held as under:­

25

26 29. In   the   instant   case,   the   compassionate   appointments   were made to the post of Assistant Engineer which is categorized in Class II but undisputedly were made in terms of the Government Order th th dated 20  May, 1981 followed with G.O. dated 16  July, 1993 and the   State   Government   finally   withdrew   these   G.Os.   pursuant   to which compassionate appointments were restricted to Class III and Class IV in compliance of the judgment of this Court in   Nagpal’s th case  (supra) by its G.O. dated 19  July, 2006.  30. It is also not disputed that the compassionate appointments on th the post of Assistant Engineer made prior to 16  July, 1993 were on adhoc/temporary basis and are regularized by a single stroke of pen th pursuant to G.O. dated 16  July, 1993, and all later compassionate th appointments on the post of Assistant Engineer made after 16  July, 1993 were considered to be regular appointments from the date of initial appointment and since the seniority has to be assigned from the   date   of   regular   appointment   in   terms   of   Rule   35(aa)   of   the scheme of Rules 1955, in consequence thereof, the seniority to each of the compassionate appointee as Assistant Engineer was assigned 27 st from   the   date   of   regular   appointment   when   published   as   on   1 January, 2004. 31. This   fact   cannot   be   ruled   out   that   the   compassionate appointments   made   on   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer   after   the judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) which became the law and was binding upon the State Governments under Article 141 of the Constitution but still it is unfortunate that Government of Tamil Nadu continued to make such compassionate appointments in Group ‘B’ posts thereafter from the year 1995 onwards which indeed were  de   hors   the   judgment   of   this   Court   but   still   allowed   such compassionate appointments to continue who later became member of service and by this time, they are serving for the last more than two decades.  At the same time, their appointments have not been interfered at any stage in the course of proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants and it is informed that they are further promoted and few of them are on the verge of retirement. 32. If we look into the seniority list of Assistant Engineers which is a cause of grievance raised by the  appellants,  the first batch of Assistant   Engineers   appointed   on   various   dates   under 28 compassionate ground are indicated from Sr. Nos.172 to 174.  These th applicants   were   appointed   initially   from   14   December,   1988   to th 9   September, 1992 and were regularized by a single stroke w.e.f. th 16   July, 1993 and rest of them from Sr. Nos.175 to 181. Later, compassionate appointees are indicated from Sr. Nos.288­307 who th th were appointed from 20  February, 1995 to 12  January, 1998 and their   initial   appointment   was   considered   to   be   the   regular appointment.   As regards the direct recruits, they are indicated in the category of 1991­1992 (Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Selection), shown from Sr. Nos.182­202 who were appointed from rd th 03  May, 1995 to 07   March, 1996, undisputedly, much after the regular appointments of compassionate appointees in the first batch. So far as direct selection of second batch is concerned, they are shown in the category of the year 1993­1995 (Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Selection) and their names are indicated from th Sr. Nos.308­475 and all were appointed from 29  January, 1998 to th 13  October, 1999.  33. To   make   it   further   clear   so   far   as   the   candidates   selected through the Commission are concerned, their seniority in the cadre 29 of Assistant Engineer has been assigned according to the order of inter se merit assigned by the Commission but placed below the compassionate   appointee   Assistant   Engineers   who   are   indeed regularly   appointed   much   prior   to   the   entry   of   direct   recruits appointed as Assistant Engineers on their open selection through the Commission. 34. The seniority list of Assistant Engineers, for the first time, came st to be published as on 1  January, 2004 which has been placed on record and the cause of grievance projected by the appellants by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution was that the   appointments   of   compassionate   appointees   to   the   post   of Assistant   Engineer   were   void   from   its   inception   and   not   in conformity with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and being an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services to be made by open selection, disentitles compassionate appointees to claim seniority above the direct recruit Assistant Engineers in the st seniority list published as on 1   January, 2004.   The submission although did not find favour before the High Court.  30 35. We are of the view that after the judgment of this Court in th Nagpal’s case  (supra) (decided on 4  May, 1994) became the law and binding   on   the   State   Governments,   still  if   the   appointments   are made de hors the judgment of this Court by the State Government under its executive fiat, prima facie, are not sustainable in law and that indeed denies consequential seniority. 36. At   the   same   time,   this   Court   cannot   be   oblivious   of   the situation   that   the   compassionate   appointments   in   Group ‘B’(Assistant Engineers in the instant case) were made, in the first th instance, pursuant to G.O. dated 20   May, 1981 wherein it was specifically mentioned that such compassionate appointments shall be on ad­hoc basis just to overcome the financial crisis because the family has lost their breadwinner and such incumbent has to qualify and   undergo   the   process   of   regular   selection   to   be   held   by   the th Commission but later, by G.O. dated 16  July 1993, the stipulation of qualifying to hold the post after selection to become member of service   was   deleted.     In   consequence   thereof,   all   such   earlier appointments made in Group ‘B’ (Assistant Engineers in particular th to which we are concerned), made prior to 16   July, 1993 were 31 admittedly made on ad­hoc basis and because of stipulation being th deleted under G.O. dated 16   July, 1993, all such compassionate appointees stood regularized by a single stroke by the Government th w.e.f. 16  July, 1993 and later compassionate appointments which were   made   on   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineers,   their   initial appointment was considered to be the regular appointment for all practical purposes.   th 37. Neither the G.O. dated 20  May, 1981 nor the latter G.O. dated th 16  July, 1993 were the subject matter of challenge, and by the time the   question   was   raised   assailing   compassionate   appointments, much   water   was   flown   by   that   time   and   on   the   date   when   the st seniority list came to be published of Assistant Engineers as on 1 January, 2004, such compassionate appointees, by that time had attained seniority in service for 7 to 12 years.   38. This Court can take a judicial notice that appointments on compassionate basis as Assistant Engineers are made under the th th respective G.Os. dated 20   May, 1981 or 16   July, 1993 and it is not   the   case   of   the   appellants   that   when   such   compassionate appointments   were   made,   either   of   them   was   ineligible   at   the 32 time   of   initial   appointment   or   appointed   due   to misrepresentation/concealment on the part of the appointee.  By the time   the   matter   has   travelled   to   this   Court,   each   of   the compassionate appointee has now been in service for almost more than two decades and as informed, are further promoted and few of them are on the verge of their retirement.  At this point of time, any adverse comments made at this stage may certainly jeopardize the right   and   interest   of   the   compassionate   appointees,   who   were although beneficiaries but were never at fault that indeed lies with the   State   authorities   in   making   compassionate   appointments   de hors the judgment of this Court which was the law and binding upon the State Government under Article 141 of the Constitution.   39. In   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   the   question   still emerges as to whether such compassionate appointees are entitled to   claim   their   seniority   in   the   cadre   of   Assistant   Engineers   as st published on 1  January, 2004.   40. The question, in our prima facie view, appears to be affirmative for the reason that all compassionate appointments were made at different point of time.  The first batch of compassionate appointees 33 regardless of their nature of appointment stood regularized w.e.f. th 16  July, 1993 and the second batch of compassionate appointees were treated to be regular from the date of their initial appointment and became   entitled to claim consequential seniority in terms of Rule 35(aa) of the scheme of Rules, 1955 and if that is taken at its face value, there appears no infirmity in the seniority which has st been assigned  to   the   compassionate  appointees   published   on  1 January, 2004.  It is also not the case of the appellants that after they became member of service, the compassionate appointees are later   regularized   retrospectively   from   the   date   of   their   initial appointment.   41. To   the   contrary,   the   fact   which   has   come   on   record   and st reflected from the seniority list dated 1  January, 2004 is that the appellants are direct recruits who joined service after their selection on the recommendations made by the Commission and prior to their becoming   member   of   service,   first   and   second   batch   of compassionate appointments stood regularized and that being so, in our   considered   view,   the   seniority   being   consequential   has   been rightly assigned to the compassionate appointees, vis­à­vis, direct 34 st recruits as reflected in the seniority list published on 1   January, 2004, which is in conformity with Rule 35(aa) of Rules 1955. 42. We,   at   one   stage,   were   of   the   view   that   whether   such appointments   which   were   de   hors   the   judgment   of   this   Court, deserve   to   be   interfered   with   but   taking   into   consideration   the humanity aspect and the fact that they are in service for more than two decades, we became reluctant to make adverse comments which may cause prejudice to them.   At this stage, before we decided to conclude the matter, we called upon the learned counsel for the State Government to file an additional affidavit as to under what circumstances   the   appointments   are   being   made   on   the   post   of Assistant Engineers which is a Group ‘B’ post, at least, after the th judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) (decided on 4  May, 1994). 43. In compliance of our order, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Secretary to the Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development and the explanation tendered by the State Government is far from satisfaction that the judgment in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) of th this Court dated 4  May, 1994 was for the first time made available 35 to   the   Government   by   the   Law   Department   vide   letter   dated th 27  September 2001.  Taking note of the judgment of this Court in Nagpal’s case (supra), the State Government primarily proceeded and put a complete ban on compassionate appointments, leaving aside certain   categories   of   posts   such   as   teachers,   doctors   and   police th constabulary   by   letter   dated   29   November,   2001   and   learned counsel has further informed to this Court that four appointments in the cadre of teachers which is Group ‘B’ Post were made by the State   authorities   thereafter   and   still   the   Government   was   so cognizant of the judgment of this Court, the detailed guidelines for compassionate   appointments   were   notified   with   a   clear   direction that such compassionate appointments shall be restricted only to th Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts for the first time, by a letter dated 19  July 2006.   44. At   the   same   time,   this   fact   has   not   been   disclosed   in   the affidavit that apart from the post of Assistant Engineer to which the controversy is brought before this Court, how many compassionate appointments in Group ‘B’ posts are made by the State Government in various departments after the judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s 36 th case   (supra)   decided   on   4   May,   1994.     This   fact   remains conspicuously silent for various reasons which could be discerned by this Court from the material available on record. 45. After going through the explanation which has been tendered by the State Government, this Court, records its anguish to say that this   attitude   of   the   Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   in   avoiding   the th judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) dated 4  May 1994, which was not only the law but binding on the State Government under Article 141 of the Constitution, if still overlooked and flouted in   this   manner,   such   an   act   of   the   State   Government   is unpardonable and cannot be countenanced by this Court.   46. After taking note of the rival submissions and the view which we   have   expressed,   although   we   deprecate   the   practice   of   State Government   in   making   such   compassionate   appointments   under Group ‘B’ post after the judgment of this Court in   Nagpal’s case (supra), still this Court refrain to disturb the seniority list which has been assigned to the respective compassionate appointees, vis­à­vis, direct recruits Assistant Engineers to whom consequential seniority has been assigned undisputedly under Rule 35(aa) of Rules, 1955 37 which may not call for our interference, at this belated stage, after each of them is in service for more than two decades and indeed right is being conferred to each of them and an individual although a beneficiary but was not at fault at any given point of time either at the time of entry into service or thereafter. 47. Consequently,   these   appeals   fail   and   accordingly   dismissed with above observations. No costs. 48. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. …………….………………….J.       (AJAY RASTOGI) …………….…………………J.        (ABHAY S. OKA) NEW DELHI MARCH 10, 2022. 38