Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2061 OF 2015 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21297 of 2014)

The Rajasthan State Road  Transport Corporation and others … Appellants

Versus

Revat Singh …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  and  order  

dated 1.5.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature for  

Rajasthan, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 428 of 2014  

whereby the Division Bench declined to interfere with the  

order passed by learned Single Judge.

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties,  and  

perused the record.

Page 2

Page 2 of 8

3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father  

of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant  

Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  (hereinafter  

referred to  as the “Corporation”).   He died in  harness on  

26.6.2006.  The  respondent  sought  compassionate  

appointment  on  the  post  of  driver.  His  educational  

qualification  was  8th standard  pass.   The  appellants  

considered  the  application  for  appointment  on  

compassionate ground, and rejected the same on the ground  

that the respondent was not qualified either for the post of  

driver or that of conductor. The respondent was accordingly  

communicated  by  the  appellants  vide  letter  dated  

18.1.2008.  The respondent made further correspondence in  

the  matter  after  obtaining  driving  licence  on  23.1.2007.  

However, said licence was not for heavy vehicles.  When the  

appellants did not accept request for  appointment against  

the post of driver, the respondent filed writ petition no. 1892  

of 2011 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide  

order dated 29.1.2014, directing the appellant to consider  

case of the respondent for the post of driver.

Page 3

Page 3 of 8

4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the  

appellant filed intra court appeal, but the same was disposed  

of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned  

order dated 1.5.2014 declining to interfere with the order of  

learned  Single  Judge,  and  observed  that  the  said  order  

advances the cause of justice considering the hardship faced  

by  the  family  of  deceased  employee.   However,  it  was  

further observed by the Division Bench that the order would  

be  treated  to  have  been  passed  in  the  special  facts  and  

circumstances of the case.

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  –  Rajasthan  State  

Road Corporation - submitted before this Court that the High  

Court has erred in law in directing the appellant to consider  

the case of respondent for appointment against the post of  

driver  on  the  compassionate  ground.   It  is  specifically  

pointed out that the respondent is not qualified for the post  

of driver as he is neither matriculate nor possessed driving  

licence for heavy vehicles.

Page 4

Page 4 of 8

6. Shri  Virender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel  for  the  

respondent,  did  not  deny  that  the  respondent  was  only  

8th standard pass,  and the driving licence obtained in  the  

year 2007, was in respect of light vehicles.

7. During arguments, we are informed by learned counsel  

for the appellant–Corporation that respondent has now been  

offered and engaged as Artisan Grade III.  On behalf of the  

respondent, it is pleaded that the respondent be engaged at  

least  against  post  of  Artisan  Grade II.   However,  there  is  

nothing on the record to show that such post is lying vacant  

nor is it clear that a person can be directly appointed to the  

post of Artisan Grade II.

8. In  I.G.(Karmik)  and others   vs. Prahalad Mani  

Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162,   this Court has held that  

compassionate appointment can not be granted to a post  

for which the candidate is ineligible.  It is further held in  

said case that even though higher post was applied for on

Page 5

Page 5 of 8

compassionate  ground,  when  a  lower  post  offered  

considering qualification and eligibility  as  per  rules  was  

accepted by the candidate, he cannot claim higher post.

9. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan  

Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560,  this Court has clarified the law  

relating to compassionate appointments in following words:

“15. This Court in a large number of decisions has  held  that  the  appointment  on  compassionate  ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It  must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid  down therefor viz. that the death of the sole bread  earner  of  the  family,  must  be  established.  It  is  meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such  contentions  are  raised,  the  constitutional  philosophy  of  equality  behind  making  such  a  scheme be  taken  into  consideration.  Articles  14  and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that  all  eligible  candidates  should  be  considered  for  appointment  in  the  posts  which  have  fallen  vacant.  Appointment  on  compassionate  ground  offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is  an exception to the said rule. It is a concession,  not a right. (See SBI v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475  para 33.)”

10. In  State  of  Gujarat v.  Arvindkumar  T.  Tiwari,  

(2012) 9 SCC 545, this Court while examining the law in  

the  matters  of  compassionate  appointment,  has  made  

following observations:

Page 6

Page 6 of 8

“11. The  courts  and  tribunals  do  not  have  the  power to issue direction to make appointment by  way  of  granting  relaxation  of  eligibility  or  in  contravention thereof. In  State of M.P. v.  Dharam  Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165, this Court while dealing with  a similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian  grounds and held as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31)

“31. … The courts as also the tribunals have  no  power  to  override  the  mandatory  provisions  of  the  Rules  on  sympathetic  consideration  that  a  person,  though  not  possessing  the  essential  educational  qualifications, should be allowed to continue  on  the  post  merely  on  the  basis  of  his  experience. Such an order would amount to  altering or amending the statutory provisions  made by the Government under Article 309  of the Constitution.”

12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even  for admission to a course falls within the exclusive  domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be  the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found  to  be  arbitrary,  unreasonable  or  has  been  fixed  without keeping in mind the nature of service, for  which  appointments  are  to  be  made,  or  has  no  rational  nexus  with  the  object(s)  sought  to  be  achieved  by  the  statute.  Such  eligibility  can  be  changed  even  for  the  purpose  of  promotion,  unilaterally  and  the  person  seeking  such  promotion  cannot  raise  the  grievance  that  he  should  be  governed  only  by  the  rules  existing,  when  he  joined  service.  In  the  matter  of  appointments,  the  authority  concerned  has  unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects  are concerned, but it must meet the requirement  of  eligibility,  etc.  The  court  should  therefore,  refrain from interfering, unless the appointments

Page 7

Page 7 of 8

so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found  to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good  conscience”  and  “equity”.  (Vide  State  of  J&K v.  Shiv Ram Sharma (1999)3 SCC 653 and  Praveen  Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 8 SCC 633.)”

11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court  

as above, we are of the opinion that since the respondent  

was not qualified for the post of driver, as such the High  

Court erred in law in directing the appellant to consider  

his case against the post of driver of heavy vehicle.

12. Therefore  in  the  above  circumstances,  this  appeal  

deserves to be allowed as the respondent is not qualified  

for the post of driver.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  

However, the respondent shall be allowed to work on the  

post of Artisan Grade III as offered to him.  No order as to  

cost.

……………………..…………J.                          [Dipak Misra]

     .………………..……………J.                [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi;

Page 8

Page 8 of 8

February 20, 2015.