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