Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C And Another v. M. Sampoornamma .

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The High Court has directed the appellant Corporation to consider the case of the respondent for suitable employment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme without reference to Sweeper's post and the ban on fresh recruitment. The appellant Corporation is challenging the direction on the ground that it was neither legal nor proper for the High Court to give such a direction in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The reasoning of the High Court for giving the aforesaid direction is as under:

“That apart, the imposition of ban does not mean that the vacancy has not existed at all. The ban could only be against filling up of the vacancy. In the case of compassionate appointments, such a ban cannot be pressed into service to defeat the claim of the appellant (sic applicant).”

4. It clearly appears that the High Court has failed to appreciate the real nature of compassionate appointments and the Scheme framed in that behalf. If for valid reasons, the general policy decision has been taken not to make any fresh appointment then it would not be proper for the Court to direct filling up of the post merely because there is a vacancy. The Court's sympathy and consequential orders/directions should not be such as would create an impediment in smooth and efficient running of the administration. Orders and directions for consideration of appointments on compassionate grounds should be made where it is possible and permissible for the employer to employ the dependant of his earlier employee. Once it is found that the decision of the employer not to make any fresh appointment is bona fide it would not be proper for the Court to question the same and in spite of the decision to that effect, direct him to consider appointing the person on compassionate grounds. Merely because a vacancy existed it was not proper for the High Court to direct the appellant Corporation to consider the respondent and give her appointment ignoring the ban for any fresh appointment. We, therefore, allow this appeal and quash the impugned order passed by the High Court.