- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was appointed as a Forester on 23.6.1993 on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, who served as Deputy Forest Ranger for 27 years until his death on 2.1.1992. Dissatisfied with the Forester post, the petitioner sought appointment as Deputy Forest Ranger by submitting a representation on 10.10.2000. Upon no decision being made, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2461 of 2001, which was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed Deputy Forest Ranger on 9.11.2001 on a temporary basis with probation, but this appointment was cancelled on 23.8.2002. The petitioner challenged the cancellation in Writ Petition No. 14940 of 2002, which was quashed by the Court on 6.7.2004 with directions to observe natural justice. Following this, a show cause notice was issued on 3.9.2004 alleging illegal acceptance of the appointment. After the petitioner’s reply, the respondents cancelled the appointment by order dated 7/8.2.2005.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on compassionate grounds despite not possessing the requisite qualifications under the relevant service rules.
- Whether the cancellation of the appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger violated principles of natural justice or any legal right of the petitioner.
- The scope and limitations of compassionate appointments in public service, particularly regarding the post level and financial condition of the family of the deceased employee.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner argued that he was illegally denied appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger.
- He contended that he did not misrepresent any facts when claiming the post.
- The petitioner claimed entitlement to continue in the post of Deputy Forest Ranger.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana | Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the rule of merit-based public service appointments. It aims to provide relief to families in financial distress upon the death of an employee and not to grant the dependent the same post held by the deceased. Compassionate appointments must consider the financial condition of the family and cannot be granted indiscriminately or in posts above certain classes. | The Court applied this principle to hold that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger since the family was not shown to be in financial distress, and the petitioner lacked the prescribed qualifications. The appointment on compassionate grounds should be one step below the deceased's post, consistent with State instructions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework governing compassionate appointments, primarily relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana. It emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to merit-based recruitment, intended to alleviate financial hardship of the deceased employee’s family rather than to replicate the deceased’s post. The petitioner’s father had served 27 years, and the family was presumably receiving a pension, negating claims of destitution. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the family would suffer financial hardship without the appointment. Additionally, the petitioner lacked the qualifications required under the Punjab Forest Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1944, which were applicable in Haryana since 1998. The petitioner’s argument that the rules should not apply retrospectively was rejected. State instructions from 1995 stipulated that compassionate appointments should be one step below the deceased’s post, which the petitioner’s appointment as Deputy Forest Ranger contravened. Although the appointment as Forester may itself be questionable, the petitioner’s long service in that post justified its continuance. Consequently, the Court found no infringement of legal rights in cancelling the Deputy Forest Ranger appointment.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is dismissed.
The Court held that the petitioner was not legally entitled to appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on compassionate grounds due to lack of financial hardship of the family and absence of requisite qualifications. The cancellation of the appointment was lawful and did not violate natural justice. The petitioner’s continued service as Forester was allowed to stand given the long period of incumbency. No new precedent was established; the decision applies the established legal principles governing compassionate appointments and service rules.
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester on 23.6.1993 on compassionate grounds. His father had died on 2.1.1992, after having served the department for 27 years. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner was serving as Deputy Forest Ranger. Not satisfied with being appointed on the post of Forester, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for being appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. This representation was submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2000. Since the representation of the petitioner had not been decided, he filed C.W.P. No. 2461 of 2001. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.2.2001 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. The respondents thereafter accepted the representation of the petitioner and appointed him on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on 9.11.2001. The appointment of the petitioner was upto 29.2.2004 with stipulation that there is possibility of continuity in future. He was also put on probation for one year. This period of probation could be extended upto three years. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was, however, ordered to be cancelled on 23.8.2002. The petitioner again filed C.W.P. No. 14940 of 2002 complaining that the order of cancellation has been passed, without observing rules of natural justice. On 6.7.2004, this Court quashed the order dated 23.8.2002 with the observation that the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders, after observing rules of natural justice. Thereafter, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 3.9.2004. In this show cause notice, it has been clearly mentioned that the representation of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger was illegally accepted by the Conservator of Forests. He was, therefore, directed to show cause as to why the appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed the order dated 7/8.2.2005 directing the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger.
3. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been illegally denied the appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner did not make any misrepresentation at the time he had made the claim for being appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner is, therefore, now entitled to continue on the aforesaid post.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, , the Supreme Court has clearly held as follows:-
"2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased...
3. Unmindful of this legal position, some governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a manner of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible."
5. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it abundantly clear that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception and not the rule. The object is to help the family in distress. The purpose is not to give a job to a dependent of the deceased in lieu of the job held by the deceased. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died after serving the Forest Department for 27 years. He was holding the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. In view of the 27 years of service of the father of the petitioner, the family must be in receipt of family pension. Therefore, it could hardly be held to be a case of destitution or abject poverty. The Supreme Court has also stressed that appointment on compassionate grounds can not be given irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the. deceased. It has been nowhere pleaded by the petitioner that if the appointment had not been given to him on compassionate grounds, the family would not have been able to make two ends meet. Rather the claim of the petitioner is that he is not satisfied with having been appointed only on the post of Forester. He claims that he should be appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, the post which was held by his father. He made the representation for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, after working on the post of Forester, under protest for seven years. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we find no justification in permitting the petitioner to continue on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The petitioner has accepted in the writ petition that appointments on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger are made under the Punjab Forest Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1944. These rules have been implemented in the State of Haryana w.e.f. 17.4.1998 vide Government Notification No. GSR89/Const./Article 309/98 dated 17.4.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under these rules for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. He, however, claims that he had been recommended for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger in the year 1993. But he had been wrongly appointed on the post of Forest Guard. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the qualifications laid down under the 1944 Rules would not be applicable in his case as the rules cannot have any retrospective effect. In our opinion, the submissions are wholly misconceived. Under the instructions issued by the State of Haryana in the month of May, 1995, which have been subsequently modified on 23.8.1995, it has been stipulated that the candidates seeking appointment on compassionate grounds can only be given appointment on the post which is one step below the post held by the deceased employee. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to be considered on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Forester could also, perhaps, not be justified in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra). However, since the petitioner has continued on the post of Forester now for a period of 12 years, it would be unjust to declare the same to be illegal at this stage.
6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. The petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. His claim has been rightly rejected by the respondents.
Consequently, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Alert