SHREEJITH. L. Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION) KERALA .
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-004848-004848 / 2012
Diary number: 7691 / 2008
Advocates: A. RAGHUNATH Vs
BINA MADHAVAN
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4848 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) 7556 of 2008
Shreejith L. …Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors. …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4852, 4851, 4854, 4853, 4849-4850 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.4954/2009, SLP (C) No.33421/2009, SLP (C) No.4467/2010, SLP (C) No.31908/2010, SLP (C) Nos.6607-6608/2011)
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
Page 2
2
2. These appeals arise out of similar but different orders
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby
the High Court has allowed the claim for compassionate
appointment made by the respondents and directed the
institutions concerned to appoint them to posts against
which they are otherwise eligible for appointment. The
factual backdrop in which the writ petitions came to be filed
by the respondents and eventually allowed is different in
each case but the underlying principle on which the said
petitions have been allowed and the provisions on the basis
whereof the same have been allowed being common, we
propose to dispose of these appeals by this common
judgment.
3. In Civil Appeal arsing out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.7556 of 2008 father of respondent No.5 who was
working as a ‘Peon’ in a school known as SHGSHS,
Kadakkodu, died-in-harness on 14th October, 2000.
Respondent No.5 was a minor aged about 16 years at that
time. He attained majority on 21st April, 2002. His mother
all the same applied for a compassionate appointment under
the prevalent Compassionate Employment Scheme to the
Page 3
3
Deputy Director (Education) who informed her that
respondent No.5 could apply to the management for an
appointment as and when he attained majority. The
petitioner accordingly applied for appointment as a Sanskrit
Teacher on 7th February, 2005. It is not in dispute that he
had the requisite qualification for appointment against the
said post.
4. The post of a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher fell vacant
in the school on 1st June, 2005, but respondent No.5 was
informed that his claim will be considered in the next arising
vacancy of a non-teaching staff in the school. Even though
a representation made to the District Educational Officer
resulted in a direction to the Manager of the institution to
consider the claim of respondent No.5 yet an appointment
order was issued by the Manager in favour of the appellant
herein in preference to the claim made by the former.
5. Aggrieved by the denial of an appointment in his
favour, respondent No.5 filed W.P. (C) No.21503/2006 in
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. During the pendency
of the said petition a vacancy of a ‘Peon’ arose in the school,
Page 4
4
which was offered to him by the Manager. The High Court
disposed of the writ petition permitting respondent No.5 to
accept the offer made to him by the Manager and to file a
separate petition for redressal of his grievance if he
continued to feel aggrieved. His appointment as ‘Peon’ thus
remained without prejudice to the respondent-petitioner’s
claim against the post of Junior Sanskrit Teacher in the
school.
6. Pursuant to the liberty reserved in his favour,
respondent No.5 filed W.P. (C) No.16399/2007 in the High
Court praying for a certiorari quashing the appointment of
the appellant herein and a mandamus directing the Manager
to appoint respondent No.5-writ petitioner in his place as a
full time Junior Sanskrit Teacher. A single Bench of the
High Court allowed the said petition by an order dated 10th
December, 2007 quashing the appointment of the appellant
herein and directing the Manager to appoint respondent
No.5 in his place effective from 1st August, 2006. The above
order passed by the High Court was then assailed by the
appellant herein in Writ Appeal No.149 of 2008 which appeal
Page 5
5
has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order
under challenge before us.
7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned
senior counsel, contended that appointments on
compassionate basis are made only to give succour to a
family in financial distress on account of the untimely death
of an earning member. Such appointments cannot,
therefore, be made where the family concerned has
managed to survive for several years before the claim for
appointment is made by someone who was eligible for such
appointment. He contended that the claim for appointment
in the instant case had been made nearly five years after
the demise of the father of respondent No.5 which was
liable to be rejected on the ground of being highly belated.
The High Court was, argued Mr. Rajan, not justified in
setting aside the appointment of the appellant who had
worked as a teacher and had been regularly appointed,
which appointment was approved even by the Competent
Authority in the Department of Education.
Page 6
6
8. On behalf of respondent No.5 it was per contra argued
that appointments on compassionate basis were regulated
by statutory rules framed under the Kerala Education Act
and the Government Orders which were made applicable to
such appointments. An application filed within the period of
limitation under the prescribed rules could not, contended
the learned counsel, be rejected on the ground of delay
especially when the intervening period was not shown to
have resulted in any material change in the economic status
of the family who continued to suffer in penury as on the
date of demise of the bread-winner of the family.
9. Appointments on compassionate basis are recognised
as a permissible mode of induction into service under the
Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education
Act. Rule 9A appearing in Chapter XXIVA and Rule 51B
appearing in Chapter XIVA of the said Rules are relevant in
this regard. While Rule 9A deals with employment of
dependants of the non-teaching staff of an aided school
dying-in-harness, Rule 51B deals with employment of
dependants of an aided school teacher dying-in-harness.
The said rules are as under:-
Page 7
7
“9A: The manager shall give employment to a dependant of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness . Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointment.”
(emphasis supplied)
“51B: The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments.”
10. It is evident from a plain reading of the above that
appointments under the statutory rules are further
regulated by the terms of government orders issued on the
subject. Government order dated 24th May, 1999 is in this
regard relevant, for it stipulates the conditions of eligibility
including the family income and the category of
appointments that can be made under the compassionate
scheme. Qualification for the post, age limit for making
appointments and time for filing applications for
compassionate appointments are matters regulated by the
said order. Para 19 of the Government order stipulates the
period of limitation for preferring applications and may be
extracted:
Page 8
8
“19. The time limit for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of govt. Servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority.”
11. A conjoint reading of the Statutory Rules and para 19
of the Government Order extracted above would show that
the compassionate appointment scheme itself permits
applications to be made within two years from the date of
death of the government servant. In the case of minors the
permissible period for making applications is three years
from the date the minor attains majority. It is not in dispute
that the application for appointment as a Lower Grade
Sanskrit Teacher was made by the respondent on 7th
February, 2005 i.e. within three years of his attaining
majority. Such being the position under the terms of the
scheme, the validity or wisdom whereof is not under
challenge before us, it is manifest that the scheme not only
permitted making of an application but when read in
conjunction with Rule 9A entitled respondent No.5 to seek
such an appointment subject to his fulfilling other
requirements stipulated in the scheme. It is nobody’s case
that respondent No.5 did not satisfy other conditions
Page 9
9
stipulated in the Government Order nor was his request for
appointment as Junior Grade Sanskrit Teacher rejected on
any such ground. That being so, the High Court was
justified in holding that the prayer for appointment made to
respondent No.5 should have been allowed.
12. It is true that the appellant had worked for nearly five
years after his appointment against the vacancy but it is
equally true that he could not legally oppose or grudge the
claim made by respondent No.5 in the light of the provisions
of the scheme and the statutory rules on the subject. That
was particularly so when the appointment of the appellant
itself was not made on the basis of any fair or competitive
selection process or any other transparent method aimed at
evaluating the comparative merit of all those qualified &
interested in taking the job. The appointment of the
appellant, it was fairly conceded by Mr. Rajan, had been
made entirely at the discretion of the Manager of the
institution, and was not preceded by any public notice or
advertisement inviting candidates from the open market to
apply for appointment against the available vacancy. Be
that as it may, we are not so much concerned with the
Page 10
10
validity of the appointment of the appellant in these
proceedings as we are with the entitlement of respondent
No.5 to seek an appointment in terms of the Statutory Rules
and the prevalent scheme. We, therefore, see no reason to
interfere with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal
filed by the appellant must consequently fail.
13. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.4954 of 2009, father of respondent No.1 had been
working as the ‘Headmaster’ of East Valliyai, U.P. School,
who died in harness on 27th April, 1995. Respondent No.1
was a minor at that time who attained majority only on 8th
May, 1995 and has got married since then. On 21st July,
2007, the appellant-petitioner No.2 was appointed as a
‘Peon’ in the East Valliyai, U.P. School. It was thereafter on
10th September, 2007 that respondent No.1 claimed a
compassionate appointment. Assistant Educational Officer
directed the Manager to consider the said application by an
order dated 24th April, 2008. The Manager, however,
rejected the claim on the ground that the prayer for
appointment was made belatedly. The District Educational
Officer upheld the rejection in terms of his order dated 24th
Page 11
11
June, 2008. The matter was then brought up before the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C)
No.16815/2008 in which the writ petitioner, respondent
No.1 before us, challenged the rejection of her claim for
appointment on compassionate basis. By an order dated
20th October, 2008, a single Bench of the High Court
allowed the said petition and directed the Manager of the
institution to appoint the writ petitioner against the vacancy
of ‘Peon’ that had arisen on 30th June, 2008. Aggrieved by
the said order, the Manager of the school filed Writ Appeal
No.2211 of 2008 before a Division Bench of the High Court
which appeal was dismissed by the High Court in terms of
its order dated 13th January, 2009 impugned in this appeal.
14. Appearing for the appellant it was contended by Mr.
Rajan that the application filed by respondent No.1 was
belated inasmuch as the same was filed 12 years after her
attaining majority. He submitted that during the intervening
period respondent No.1 had got married which clearly
showed that the family was not in penury to call for any
sympathy towards it. The High Court had according to Mr.
Rajan, fallen in error in holding that delay in the filing of the
Page 12
12
application was only technical in nature as the vacancy
against which the prayer for compassionate appointment
had been made had occurred after about 13 years of the
demise of the father of respondent No.1.
15. There is considerable merit in the contention urged by
Mr. Rajan. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 had
attained majority on the 8th of May, 1995 whereas the
application for compassionate appointment was made on
10th September, 2007. This application was, on the face of
it, beyond the period stipulated in the scheme for making
such a claim. The High Court appears to have confused an
application required to be filed within the period stipulated
for the purpose with the availability of a vacancy against
which such an application could be considered by the
Manager. These were two distinctly different matters.
What was important was the making of an application for
appointment on compassionate basis within the period
stipulated for the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is
available had nothing to do with the making of the
application itself. An application could and indeed ought to
have been made by respondent No.1 within the time
Page 13
13
stipulated, regardless whether there was a vacancy already
available or likely to become available in the near or distant
future. Respondent No.1 having failed to do that, could not
claim a compassionate appointment especially when there
was nothing on record to suggest that the family was in
penury notwithstanding the lapse of a considerable period
since the demise of the bread-winner; during which period
respondent No.1 had got married and settled down in life
and supports a family. The High Court was in that view
clearly in error in issuing a mandamus to the Manager to
appoint the respondent on compassionate basis which order
calls for interference and is hereby reversed.
16. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.33421 of 2009 father of respondent No.4 was working as
a ‘Peon’ who died while in service on 9th September, 1988.
Respondent No.4 applied to the Manager of the institution
for a compassionate appointment on 2nd May, 1990. The
Manager intimated to respondent No.4 by a letter dated 4th
June, 1990 that as and when a vacancy occurs, he would be
considered for appointment. Respondent No.4 applied again
Page 14
14
in the prescribed format against a vacancy on 25th May,
2002.
17. On 5th June, 2002 the appellant herein was appointed
as a teacher against the available vacancy of a Hindi
Teacher. The request made by respondent No.4 was shortly
thereafter rejected by the Manager by order dated 17th
June, 2002. The Assistant Educational Officer, however,
accepted the claim made by respondent No.4 and declined
approval to the appointment of the appellant by its order
dated 23rd September, 2002. The Assistant Educational
Officer held that respondent No.4 was qualified for
appointment against the post of Hindi Teacher and the
Manager ought to have considered his prayer and appointed
him. He accordingly directed the Manager to appoint
respondent No.4 against the available vacancy.
18. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred
Writ Petition No.7413 of 2007 before the High Court which
was dismissed by a single Bench by its order dated 25th
September, 2009. Writ Appeal No.2186 of 2009 preferred
against the said order was also dismissed by the Division
Page 15
15
Bench of the High Court in terms of its order dated 6th
October, 2009.
19. Mr. Rajan, learned senior counsel, argued that the first
application submitted by respondent No.4 for compassionate
appointment on 2nd May, 1990 was no doubt within the time
prescribed but the same was not in proper format. It was,
argued the learned counsel, essential that the application
should be not only within the time stipulated for the purpose
but also in the prescribed format. Inasmuch as that was
not so in the instant case the application must be deemed
to be non est.
20. We regret our inability to accept that submission. The
Manager of the school had on receipt of the application from
respondent No.4 not only acknowledged the request for
appointment but also recognised that respondent No.4
possessed the requisite qualification for appointment as a
Hindi Teacher. The request was not, however, granted as
no vacancy in the cadre was available in the school at that
time. What is noteworthy is that the Manager did not reject
the application on the ground that the same was not in the
Page 16
16
prescribed format or that the application was deficient in
disclosing information that was essential for consideration of
the prayer for a compassionate appointment. If the
authority concerned before whom the application was
moved and who was supposed to consider the request, did
not find the format of the application to be a disabling factor
for a proper consideration thereof, it could not be set up as
a ground for rejection of the prayer, by the beneficiary of
the appointment made in derogation of the rights of
respondent No.4. At any rate, what was important was the
substance of the application and not the form. If the
application in substance conveyed the request for a
compassionate appointment and provided the information
which the Manager required for considering the request, the
very fact that the information was not in a given format
would not have been a good reason to turn down the
request. We need to remind ourselves that the scheme is
meant to be a beneficial scheme aimed at helping those in
need of assistance on account of an untimely demise in the
family. Inasmuch as the Assistant Educational Officer and
even the High Court found respondent No.4 to be eligible for
Page 17
17
appointment and directed the Manager to make such an
appointment, they committed no error to warrant our
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Civil
Appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
21. In Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
Nos.31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011, the mother of
respondent No.1 was working as a ‘Teacher’ who died-in-
harness on 4th September, 1979. Respondent No.1 attained
majority on 6th December, 1991 and passed her SSLC
examination in the year 1993 and Teacher Training Course
in the year 2003. Respondent No.1 then applied for a
compassionate appointment as a teacher on 9th September,
2005 which request was turned down by the Manager in
terms of his letter dated 12th June, 2006. The Manager
pointed out that respondent No.1 was a married woman and
thus a member of another family. The Manager also pointed
out that the father of respondent No.1 being a Naval Officer
the family income at the time of demise of her mother was
beyond the limit prescribed under the scheme. He also
pointed out that the application for appointment was
Page 18
18
belated having been made nearly 24 years after the demise
of her mother.
22. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 appears
to have approached the District Educational Officer, who
allowed the claim made by the said respondent in terms of
his order dated 22nd October, 2007. A revision was then filed
by the Manager against the said order before the
Government which was dismissed by order dated 27th June,
2009. Challenging the said order, the Manager filed Writ
Petition (C) No.21384 of 2009 before the High Court which
was dismissed by a single Bench of the High Court by order
dated 12th November, 2009. Writ Appeal No. 2791 of 2009
preferred against the said order having failed, the Manager
of the institution has preferred the present appeal. The very
same order has been assailed by the appellant in Special
Leave Petition (C) Nos.6607-6608 of 2011.
23. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants
that the High Court was in error in dismissing the writ
petition filed by the Manager of the institution disregarding
the fact that the prayer for appointment on compassionate
Page 19
19
basis had been made 14 years after respondent No.1 had
attained majority. During the intervening period the
respondent not only got married and settled down with her
husband in another family but did not in principle qualify for
compassionate appointment being the member of the family
of her husband. It was also contended that the orders
passed by the District Educational Officer and that passed
by the Government dismissing the revision petition were
unsustainable and ought to be reversed.
24. There is, in our view, considerable merit in the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The
application filed by respondent No.1 was indeed belated
having been filed 14 years after the respondent attained
majority. No explanation, muchless a worthwhile one is
forthcoming, for this kind of inordinate and unexplained
delay. Delay assumes greater significance keeping in view
the fact that respondent No.1 has got married and has now
settled with her husband comprising a separate family. The
appointment of the said respondent may not in that view
lead to any financial help for the other members of the
family left behind by the deceased. While it is true that
Page 20
20
marriage by itself does not in view of the language
employed in the scheme, disqualify the person concerned
from seeking a compassionate appointment, the fact
remains that delay of more than 14 years could itself prove
fatal to the prayer for a compassionate appointment. The
orders passed by the Educational Officer and the
Government and those by the High Court in Writ Petition
and in Writ Appeal are therefore unsustainable and, hence
liable to be set aside.
25. That leaves us with Civil Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No.4467 of 2010. In this case also the
High Court had upon consideration of the facts of the case
and the provisions of the scheme directed appointment of
respondent No.7 as a ‘Full-time Menial’ against the first
vacancy that became available in the school concerned.
Father of respondent No.7, it appears, was a ‘Full-time
Menial’ who passed away on 19th July, 2000. Since
respondent No.7 was a minor at that time, his mother sent
an application addressed to the Manager of the school
stating that she was agreeable to the grant of the job to her
son-respondent No.7 in view of the death of her husband.
Page 21
21
The said letter was returned to the mother of respondent
No.7 with a postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. In October
2002 respondent No.7 submitted an application in the
prescribed format to the District Educational Officer who
returned it to the said respondent to be given to the
Manager of the school for consideration. Without considering
the said application respondent No.1 appointed appellant
No.1 as a ‘Full-time Menial’ on 11th April, 2003. On 2nd June,
2003, appellant No.3 was also appointed against the
vacancy of a ‘Full-time Menial’. Similarly, appellant No.2 was
appointed as ‘Full-time Menial’ on 1st February, 2005 when
appellant No.1 was upgraded from the post of a ‘Full-time
Menial’, to that of a ‘Peon’. The prayer made by respondent
No.7 was eventually rejected by the District Educational
Officer on the ground that it was belated and was not in
terms of the Government Order. Similar claim made by Mrs.
Rajeswari was also rejected by the District Educational
Officer. Both of them filed separate writ petitions which
were disposed of by the High Court remanding the matter to
the District Educational Officer for a fresh hearing. Upon
remand the District Educational Officer upheld the claim
Page 22
22
made by respondent No.7 and Mrs. Rajeswari. Aggrieved by
the said order, petitioner preferred revision petition before
the Government which was dismissed. Appellants No.1 & 2
and respondent No.1 then filed writ petitions in which it was
submitted that respondent No.7 and Mrs. Rajeswari were
gainfully employed. A Single Bench of the High Court
allowed the said petitions holding that respondent No.7 and
Mrs. Rajeswari were both disentitled to claim compassionate
appointment. In the meantime on 15th December, 2007
appellant No.4 was appointed as ‘Full-time Menial’. Writ
Appeal No.780 of 2008 filed by Mrs. Rajeswari against the
judgment of the single Bench was dismissed by the High
Court. By a separate order dated 11th December, 2009, the
High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.7,
reversed the judgment of the Single Bench in so far as the
said respondent was concerned.
26. The material facts are not in dispute. That an
application was filed by the mother of respondent No.7
which was returned with an endorsement “unclaimed” is
admitted. In para 2 of the writ petition filed by the
appellants it was stated as under:
Page 23
23
“The 4th respondent’s father Sri. CV Kesavan was a full time menial at CA High School, Purvamba from 4.6.1962. On the verge of his retirement namely on 19.7.2000, Sri Kesavan died. Accordingly, the wife of Sri. Kesavan, namely Smt. KM Chandrika submitted an application on a plain paper on 22.7.2000 before the 1st
petitioner seeking appointment under Rule 9A, Chapter XIV KER.”
27. The fact that an application was submitted to the
District Educational Officer is also beyond dispute keeping in
view the endorsement made by District Educational Officer,
Palaghat, dated 8th October, 2002, a copy whereof has
been placed at page 81 of the S.L.P. As a matter of fact the
need for making of such application to the District
Educational Officer appears to have arisen on account of
refusal of the Manager to receive the application addressed
to him. Such being the case, the rejection of the application
by the District Educational Officer that the same was
belated was wholly unjustified and was rightly set aside by
the High Court in the earlier proceedings before it. Upon
remand the District Educational Officer correctly found
respondent No.7 to be eligible for an appointment having
made an application in time which was erroneously set aside
by the learned single Bench on the ground that the
application had been filed beyond the period of limitation.
Page 24
24
The error was, however, corrected by the Division Bench by
holding that the refusal of the Manager in accepting the
application filed for appointment of respondent No.7 was
only a strategy of the Manager to ward off the claim made
before him. The Division Bench also correctly held that if the
application was found to be defective for any reason the
Manager should have, instead of rejecting the same
summarily given an opportunity to respondent No.7 to
correct the mistake by filing a proper application in
accordance with rules. The High Court observed:
“In this case, the appellant’s application was defective, but we are not inclined to hold that the appellant did not raise any claim in time. It was raised by the widow of the employee, who died in harness, on the fourth day of his death. An application or a representation from the widow, cannot be said to be relevant, going by the relevant GO, because, as per the GO, the widow gets the first preference for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme and only with her consent, somebody else’s claim can be considered. That is the reason, why she submitted in Ext. P3 that she was agreeing to give employment to the appellant and also made a request for the same. So, definitely, if was a claim, in terms of the Government Order, governing appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, but, it was defective, in as much it was not submitted in the prescribed format. As held by this Court in Baijukumar’s case mentioned above, it is the duty of the Manager to alert the claimant, regarding the existence of a vacancy in his School and ask him to apply in the prescribed format. He has also got a duty to ask the claimant to cure the defects, if any, in the application submitted by him.”
Page 25
25
28. Learned counsel argued that there was no obligation
on the part of the Manager of the school to go in search of
the legal heirs left behind by an employee who had died in
harness. It was submitted, if an employee of the school died
in harness and his legal representatives required any
assistance in the form of compassionate appointment it is
for them to approach the school in that regard by making
an application in the manner prescribed. If the legal heirs
did not do so, the Manager could reasonably assume that
they were not in need of any assistance for otherwise they
would ask for the same. There is merit in that contention.
We do not see any obligation on the part of the institution
or the Manager to go in search of the legal heirs of
deceased employees or educate them about their right to
seek an appointment under the scheme. If a person is
eligible for a benefit under the scheme he can and indeed
should on his own approach the institution and seek such an
appointment. The view expressed by the High Court in
Baiju Kumar v. D.E.O., Trivandrum (2003) 3 KLT 240,
to which a reference has been made in the judgment,
appears to be unreasonable albeit in favour of the legal
Page 26
26
heirs of the employee. Having said that, we have no
manner of doubt that in case an application is made by legal
heirs of a deceased employee claiming the benefit of the
scheme for compassionate appointment, the deficiencies
and defects, if any, in the said application ought to be
pointed out to the concerned to enable him to remove the
same within a reasonable time. But if the defects are not
removed within the time granted, an adverse inference
could be drawn against the person in default. On the
contrary, where an application is filed, entertained and
eventually declined for a reason other than the form in
which the same ought to have been filed, the rejection
cannot be supported before the higher authority or in the
Court on the ground that application was non-est as the
same was not in the prescribed form. The application for
appointment filed on behalf of the respondent could not
therefore have been rejected on the ground that the same
was not in the prescribed form.
29. It was next argued by learned counsel for the
appellant that out of the four appointments made by the
institution the one appointed last will have to make way for
Page 27
27
the appointment of respondent No.7. Mr.Giri , learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.7 did not have any
quarrel with that proposition, so long as the appointment
so made is related back to the date when the first vacancy
had become available in the school, those appointed
subsequently being adjusted against the subsequent
vacancies. It was also fairly conceded by Mr. Giri that
since respondent No.7 has not been allowed to work,
despite the order passed by the High Court, the salary for
the period the appellant had worked could be paid to him
including the petitioner who may have to be ousted to
make room for the appointment of respondent No.7. The
appointment of respondent No.7 shall in that view be
effective from the date he is actually appointed by the
Manager of the institution. The appeal filed by the
petitioners shall accordingly stand dismissed with the
above clarification.
30. In the result;
(i) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.7566 of 2008 is dismissed.
Page 28
28
(ii) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.4954 of 2009 is however allowed, the judgment
and order passed by the High Court in W.P. (C)
No.16815 of 2008 and in Writ Appeal No. 2211 of
2008 set aside.
(iii) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.33421 of 2009 is dismissed.
(iv) Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
Nos.31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011 are allowed,
the judgment and orders passed by the High Court in
W.P. No.21384 of 2009 and in Writ Appeal No.2791 of
2009 are set aside. The order passed by the
Government in revision and that passed by the
District Educational Officer dated 22nd October, 2007
shall stand quashed. Prayer for compassionate
appointment made by respondent No.1 is
consequently rejected.
(v) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.4467 of 2010 is dismissed.
Page 29
29
31. The parties are left to bear their own costs in all the
appeals.
……………………..……………..…J. (T.S. THAKUR)
……………………………….………J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
New Delhi July 3, 2012