http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAMSUZ ZOHA ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1961            1996 SCC  (4) 546  JT 1996 (6)     7        1996 SCALE  (4)100

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO 7291 OF 1994                             AND         SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18334 OF 1995                          O R D E R      Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 2383-2384 of 1996.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      A rather  unfortunate situation has been created by the orders  of   the  High   Court  in   interfering  with   the appointments made on compassionate ground by the Government. These appeals  by special  leave arise from different orders of the  High Court  of Patna. The first batch taken up is of appeals arising  out of  SLP(C) Nos.2383-84/96, In this case the Government  had resolved  to  appoint  on  compassionate ground he dependent son or daughter of the deceased employee who died  in harness.  A long  list of persons awaiting such appointments was  prepared by  the Co-operative  Department. The Department  recommended  candidates  for  certain  posts depending upon  the  qualifications  etc.  A  committee  was constituted by  the Government  consisting of the Secretary, Co-operative  Department.   Additional  Secretary   and  the Registrar of  the Co-operative Department. The Committee had first identified  the vacant  posts and then decided to make recommendations of  the candidates.  At that time since more than 40  posts of  Class IV was available, the committee had recommended appointment  of all  the candidates  as Class IV employees. It  is also  seen that 12 posts in Class III were available but they kept reserved for promotion from existing Class IV  employees. The  candidates who  were appointed  as Class IV  approached the High Court by way of writ petitions the first  of which  is CWJC  No. 739/1991  titled Ghidharya Devi &  Ors. Vs.  State of  Bihar &  Ors. The  High Court by order dated  August 26,  1991 directed  the  respondents  to consider afresh  their appointments  to any one of the Class III posts either by promotion or fresh appointment whichever

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

was possible  in accordance  with the rules and regulations. Feeling aggrieved,  the respondents filed a Review Petition. After considerable  delay, the  Review Petition  Came to  be dismissed and appointments were directed to be made by April 30, 1992. Consequently, the appellant did not come in appeal to this Court against that order which thus has become final Following the  above order  directions have  been  given  in respect of  different persons  who had  filed separate  writ petitions. In some of the cases the appeals have now came to be filed before us.      The question  that arises  for consideration is whether the High Court is right in giving directions to appoint them afresh or  give them  promotion? It  is not  in dispute that there is  no right  vested in  the candidates for particular appointment on  compassionate grounds.  The State  had taken policy decision  to appoint  all the candidates irrespective of the  qualifications as  Class IV post and, therefore, the committee consisting  of the  Secretary, Addl. Secretary and the Registrar  met and  decided the  principle that  all the available posts  in Class IV should be made available to the candidates  in   the  awaiting   list  for   appointment  on compassionate grounds.  12 posts available in Class III were reserved for  appointment  by  promotion  to  the  Class  IV candidates who  were entitled  thereto as per the rules. The principle adopted  by the  Government cannot  be said  to be unjustified or  illegal. Undoubtedly,  some  candidates  had gone to  the Court  and obtained  orders and  in  compliance thereof,  a  pain  of  contempt  petition,  the  Government, instead of  appointing them  to Class IV posts since by then the Class  III posts  were not  available, upgraded Class IV post as  Class III  post and  confirmed them  as  Class  III employees. That  order which  was wrongly  made by  the High Court cannot  be a base to issue directions. In other words, if the  directions are  complied with all the Class IV posts would be converted into Class III posts which is against the discipline of  the service.  The High  Court, therefore, was not justified  an issuing  directions in  all the  cases for appointment to Class III post.      Appeals   are    accordingly   allowed   but   in   the circumstances without  costs. It is needless to mention that their cases would be considered and appointment made against the available vacancy in the order of seniority to the Class IV post. SLP(C) No. 18334 of 1995      Special Leave Petition is dismissed.