# Khushboo Saxena v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1125
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18291 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khushboo-saxena-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49304
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. State Electricity Board
Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 - U.P. State
Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules,
1975 (11th Amendment) Rules, 2014 - U.P.
Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000
-
Clause-6(1)
-
Compassionate
appointment is an exception to the
general rule of appointment in the public
services
and
is
in
favour
of
the
dependents
of
a
deceased
dying
in
harness and leaving his family in penury
and without any means of livelihood, and
in such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be able to make
both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules
to provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
employment is, thus, to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give such family a post much less a post
held by the deceased. (Para 18)

Petitioner claimed that she was dependant on
her mother who died in harness and therefore,
she needed compassionate appointment. In the
Application Form, in the column which was
relating to the details of persons dependent on
the deceased-employee, the petitioner had
mentioned the name of her father as Rajeev
Saxena aged about 56 years, and also herself.
However, under the column meant for "monthly
income" and "income from other sources, if
any", the petitioner has not written anything
and left such column blank. The petitioner was
born in 1992 and she filed the application in
April, 2021. She was more than 28 years of age
at the time of her application. She was well
educated as she was B.Tech in (Information
Technology). A deliberate concealment of
the annual income of the father who was
shown as dependent on the mother, (i.e,
the
deceased-employee)
had
been
resorted by the petitioner. (Para 12)

It was only after the petitioner was appointed,
she submitted a Verification form where for the
first time she disclosed that her father was
working in U.P. Police and was having an annual
income of Rs. 12,20,000/-and that the petitioner
and her family were living in Type-III quarter in
Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow and that she was
26 years of age at the time of her filling up of
the
verification
form.
Her
father
while
submitting his affidavit in response to the letter
sent by KESKO stated that he was working as
Inspector
(Accounts)
in
U.P.
Police
Commissionerate, Lucknow, and the time of
death of his wife, Smt. Kumkum Saxena and
also for the past 10 years, their daughter
Khushbu Saxena was for certain reasons
relating to family circumstances completely
dependent upon her mother who had raised
her, and was responsible for her education also.
In the affidavit filed by the father of the
petitioner, there is no mention of any judicial
separation or any decree of competent court
saying that Smt. Kumkum Saxena was living
with the petitioner separately from her father
Rajeev Saxena. (Para 13)

B. U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975 - 2015 amendment -
Even if the petitioner's contention that the
amended Rules of 2015 were inapplicable
to the employees of the KESCO is taken to
be correct, this Court cannot close its eyes
to the subterfuge to which the petitioner
resorted while seeking compassionate
appointment under Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 from the respondents. The
petitioner had filled up the Application form
showing her father and herself to be dependent
upon her mother and deliberately not filling up
column meant for monthly income and income
from other sources. The Rules of 1974 are
called Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad
Sewakal mein Mrit Sewakon Ke Ashriton Ki
Bharti Niyamwali-1975. The petitioner was not a
dependent on her deceased mother and
therefore even the unamended Rules of 1975,
were inapplicable to h

## Text

1 All. Khushboo Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1125
remarked by the learned Single Judge that
keeping in mind the principle that outside
expert's opinion may not prevail over the
expert's opinion of the Examining Body,
the Counsel for the Commission may file a
response
within
two
weeks.
The
Commission has been required to refer the
matter to its experts together with the report
from the Banaras Hindu University, before
a final stand was taken about the
correctness of the key answers to the six
questions involved in the aforesaid writ
petition. It must be noted that here of all
those questions, questions Nos. 38 and 44
are relevant; in fact, 38 alone, because the
experts from the Banaras Hindu University
have differed with the Commission's expert
committee. The hearing of Writ-A No. 3372
of 2022 has been adjourned to 13.01.2023.
In the circumstances, this Court did not
find it feasible to adjourn the hearing of the
matter and judgment was reserved.

23. It is trite that the Commission
cannot be held bound by the report of an
outside
expert
committee
unless
the
Commission itself, that is to say, their own
experts are ad idem with the opinion of the
outside expert appointed by the Court. Or
else, the Court, if it be within the Court's
understanding, a factor that would depend
on many circumstances, is of opinion that
the report of the outside experts shows the
key answers approved by the Committee to
be palpably wrong without a detailed
process of reasoning, may extend relief by
holding the answer key to be wrong.

24. This course has not been adopted
in this petition and there is no reason for
this Court to await the outcome of the
Commission's response in another matter,
may be involving the same issue with
regard to one question. This Court is of
opinion
that
the
exigencies
of
an
examination to select candidates to public
posts cannot be kept indefinitely under the
shadow of uncertainty nor can it be made to
vary endlessly as that would impede timely
selection to public posts with finality
attached to the process.

25. This Court is of opinion that in
the overall circumstances, there have
been sufficient safeguards observed by
the Commission in scrutinizing the
probity of their answer key, on the basis
of which selections have been held. These
should not be exposed to a lingering
uncertainty. As a parting remark, it must
be noted that even if there is some doubt
about the key answer to one or the other
of the impugned answers, on account of
some material based on an outside
expert's opinion, the doubt has to be
resolved in favour of the examining body,
as held in Ran Vijay Singh.

26. In the totality of circumstances,
this Court finds no merits in the present
writ petition. It fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1125
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 18291 of 2021

Khushboo Saxena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Anubhav
Singh, Sri Krishna Agarwal, Mrs. Usha Kiran
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. State Electricity Board
Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 - U.P. State
Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules,
1975 (11th Amendment) Rules, 2014 - U.P.
Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000
-
Clause-6(1)
-
Compassionate
appointment is an exception to the
general rule of appointment in the public
services
and
is
in
favour
of
the
dependents
of
a
deceased
dying
in
harness and leaving his family in penury
and without any means of livelihood, and
in such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be able to make
both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules
to provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
employment is, thus, to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give such family a post much less a post
held by the deceased. (Para 18)

Petitioner claimed that she was dependant on
her mother who died in harness and therefore,
she needed compassionate appointment. In the
Application Form, in the column which was
relating to the details of persons dependent on
the deceased-employee, the petitioner had
mentioned the name of her father as Rajeev
Saxena aged about 56 years, and also herself.
However, under the column meant for "monthly
income" and "income from other sources, if
any", the petitioner has not written anything
and left such column blank. The petitioner was
born in 1992 and she filed the application in
April, 2021. She was more than 28 years of age
at the time of her application. She was well
educated as she was B.Tech in (Information
Technology). A deliberate concealment of
the annual income of the father who was
shown as dependent on the mother, (i.e,
the
deceased-employee)
had
been
resorted by the petitioner. (Para 12)

It was only after the petitioner was appointed,
she submitted a Verification form where for the
first time she disclosed that her father was
working in U.P. Police and was having an annual
income of Rs. 12,20,000/-and that the petitioner
and her family were living in Type-III quarter in
Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow and that she was
26 years of age at the time of her filling up of
the
verification
form.
Her
father
while
submitting his affidavit in response to the letter
sent by KESKO stated that he was working as
Inspector
(Accounts)
in
U.P.
Police
Commissionerate, Lucknow, and the time of
death of his wife, Smt. Kumkum Saxena and
also for the past 10 years, their daughter
Khushbu Saxena was for certain reasons
relating to family circumstances completely
dependent upon her mother who had raised
her, and was responsible for her education also.
In the affidavit filed by the father of the
petitioner, there is no mention of any judicial
separation or any decree of competent court
saying that Smt. Kumkum Saxena was living
with the petitioner separately from her father
Rajeev Saxena. (Para 13)

B. U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975 - 2015 amendment -
Even if the petitioner's contention that the
amended Rules of 2015 were inapplicable
to the employees of the KESCO is taken to
be correct, this Court cannot close its eyes
to the subterfuge to which the petitioner
resorted while seeking compassionate
appointment under Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 from the respondents. The
petitioner had filled up the Application form
showing her father and herself to be dependent
upon her mother and deliberately not filling up
column meant for monthly income and income
from other sources. The Rules of 1974 are
called Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad
Sewakal mein Mrit Sewakon Ke Ashriton Ki
Bharti Niyamwali-1975. The petitioner was not a
dependent on her deceased mother and
therefore even the unamended Rules of 1975,
were inapplicable to her. (Para 15)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Maharashtra & anr. Vs Madhuri Maruti Vidhate
2002 SCC Online SC 1327 (Para 17)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
06.09.2021, passed by the Managing
1 All. Khushboo Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1127
Director,
Kanpur
Electricity
Supply
Company, Kanpur Nagar and also praying
for a mandamus to be issued to the
respondents
not
to
interfere
in
the
working of the petitioner as a Karyakari
Sahayak (Executive Assistant) in KESCO,
Kanpur Nagar.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Udayan Nandan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anubhav
Singh, appearing for the respondent nos. 3
to 5 and Sri Krishna Agarawal, appearing
for the U.P. Power Corporation Limited.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated
6.9.2021 passed by the Managing Director,
Kanpur
Electricity
Supply
Company,
Kanpur Nagar and also praying for a
mandamus to be issued to the respondents
not to interfere in the working of the
petitioner
as
a
Karyakari
Sahayak
(Executive Assistant) in KESCO, Kanpur
Nagar pursuant to the impugned order.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
her mother was initially appointed in 1986
in U.P. State Electricity Board. Her services
were transferred to KESCO on permanent
basis by a government order 11.12.2008.
She worked in KESCO for almost 10 years.
She was later sent on deputation to U.P.
Power Transmission Corporation Limited
in 2019 and was working as Senior Officer
Assistant in the Accounts Department. She
died in harness on 18.05.2021. After the
death of her mother, the petitioner applied
for compassionate appointment as per
provision of U.P. State Electricity Board
Dying in Harness Rules, 1975. At the time
of her application, she also submitted an
affidavit on 14.6.2021. The application and
the affidavit have been filed as Annexure-3
and 4 to the writ petition. After completion
formalities, the petitioner was informed by
a letter dated 15.6.2021 that a decision had
been taken to offer appointment to the
petitioner as Executive Assistant in the pay
scale of Rs. 27,200-86,100/-. The petitioner
was issued an appointment letter on
24.6.2021 subject to the condition that she
obtained CCC qualification within one year
from the date of appointment.

4. The petitioner joined and was
working as Executive Assistant. She was
asked to fill up verification form also on
her appointment. The petitioner in her
verification form clearly stated that her
father was working in the U.P. Police
Department with an annual income of Rs.
12,20,200/-. After the verification form was
submitted by the petitioner on 6.7.2021, she
received a communication on 22.7.2021
that as per the amended provision of the
U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975, a person is entitled
for appointment on compassionate ground
only if no other family member of the
deceased-employee is working in Central
or State Government Department or any of
the undertaking of the Government. The
petitioner was directed to show cause and
to file an affidavit within a period of three
days. The father of the petitioner submitted
an affidavit along with application dated
28.7.2021 that the petitioner was appointed
after verification of her documents and that
he is working as an Inspector (Accounts) in
the Commissionerate of Police at Lucknow.
However, the petitioner was asked to
submit her own reply which she submitted
thereafter
on
12.8.2021
along
with
affidavit.

5. A show cause notice was issued to
her on 17.8.2021 stating that as per the
amendment carried out in Rule-5 of the
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975, in 2015 a person
cannot be appointed on compassionate
grounds, in case any of his family member
is in service under the Central or State
Government Department or any of its
undertakings. Therefore, no appointment
could have been offered to the petitioner.
The
petitioner
asked
for
relevant
documents and thereafter sent a letter to the
Chief Engineer, KESCO asking for further
time to submit her reply to the show cause
notice.
She
was
not
supplied
any
documents. She filed a First Appeal also
under the RTI Act. However, no time was
granted by the Managing Director, KESCO
and the impugned order has been passed on
6.9.2021 terminating the services of the
petitioner
on
the
ground
that
her
appointment was made in violation of U.P.
State Electricity Board Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 as amended by notification
vide notification dated 25.06.2015.

6. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that main
ground for terminating the services of the
petitioner is that as per U.P. State
Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules,
1975 (11th amendment) Rules, 2014, a
family member of the deceased-employee
was
entitled
to
be
appointed
on
compassionate ground, in case, he has not
been appointed and working in the services
of the Central or State Government
Department or any of its undertakings.
Later on, an amendment was carried out in
the U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975, as approved in the
116th meeting of the Board of U.P. Power
Corporation Limited with effect from
25.06.2015. Now, a family member of a
deceased-employee can only be appointed,
in case no other family member is
previously working in Central or State
Government or any other undertaking of
the Government. The respondents have
taken a ground that since the petitioner's
father was working in U.P. Police, she
could not have been appointed under the
2015
amendment.
However,
the
respondents
have
misinterpreted
the
amended rules. Once the U.P. Electricity
Reforms Transfer Scheme of 2000 came
into effect, the services of the mother of the
petitioner stood transferred to KESCO
permanently in 2008. Any amendment
carried out by the U.P. Power Corporation
Limited in its Board meeting with regard to
U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975, would not be
applicable to employees of KESCO,
Kanpur. Automatically, the employees of
KESCO, Kanpur would be governed by the
Rules in existence at the time of transfer.
Any subsequent amendments made by U.P.
State Electricity Board Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 would not be applicable to
such employees. Since no separate rules or
amendments have been made by KESCO,
Kanpur after the Transfer Scheme was
framed in 2000, the existing rules on the
date of transfer would be applicable to such
transferred employees. No subsequent
amendments made in the Rules by the U.P.
Power Corporation Limited would be
applicable to them. Clause-6(1) of the U.P.
Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme of
2000 clearly states that the existing rules
shall be applicable to the transferred
employees. Since no fresh rules relating to
the conditions of service were framed by
KESCO, Kanpur, therefore, the existing
rules at the time of
such transfer
/absorption would be applicable.

7. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that since
amended Rules, 2015, which were adopted
in 116th Board meeting of the U.P. Power
1 All. Khushboo Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1129
Corporation
Limited,
have
come
subsequently after the mother of the
petitioner was transferred and absorbed
permanently in KESCO, Kanpur and
KESCO, Kanpur has not adopted such
amended rules, the provision in amended
rules would not be applicable in the case of
the petitioner.

8. Sri Anubhav Singh, on the basis of
the
counter
affidavit
filed
by
the
respondents states that the application form
as was submitted by the petitioner on
1.6.2021, had not been properly filled up.
She had concealed the fact that her father
was earning more than Rs. 12,20,200/- per
annum at the time she had applied for
compassionate appointment indicating he
and the petitioner were dependent upon her
mother's salary. As per the amended Rule-5
of the Rules, 1975, if any member of
family is already employed, she was not
eligible to even apply for compassionate
appointment. Also, in the affidavit filed by
the petitioner, the petitioner had stated that
she will look after her family in the same
way as her mother was looking after her
family before her death, and that she had
not concealed anything and had stated the
entire
truth
and
in
case
any
misappropriation or misconcealment is
found later, the respondents were free to
take
appropriate
action
including
termination of her services.

9. It has been argued that the
petitioner having filed a false affidavit on
14.6.2021,
the
matter
regarding
the
petitioner's father already being employed
in U.P. Police came into light when the
petitioner filed Verification Form showing
her father to be employed as S.I./Inspector
(Accounts) in U.P. Police, and place of
residence
as
Reserve
Police
Lines,
Lucknow. After the Verification Form was
filled up and deposited by the petitioner, at
least three times notices were issued to the
petitioner
regarding
concealement/
misrepresentation in her Application Form
and in the Affidavit filed by her. The
petitioner did not file any affidavit in reply.
Her father filed an affidavit and also sent an
application that he is working in U.P.
Police. The petitioner prayed for time and
also filed an application for relevant
documents to be given to her. The
petitioner was given enough time and the
show cause notice was eventually issued to
her on 17.8.2021 and a reminder was sent
on
25.8.2021.
Only,
thereafter,
the
respondents have passed the order dated
6.9.2021.W

10. With regard to arguments raised by
the learned counsel or the petitioners
regarding U.P. Electricity Reforms Transfer
Scheme of 2000 and the transfer of service of
the petitioner's mother and her absorption in
KESKO, Kanpur in 2008, it has been
submitted that the Rules as applicable to the
mother of the petitioner regarding terms and
conditions of her employment, would be the
Rules of the UPSEB at the time of Transfer.
However, the compassionate appointment
sought by the petitioner was after the death of
her mother, and the Rules existing at the time
of submission of such application form would
be taken into consideration for appointment
on compassionate ground. It has been argued
that the first and foremost thing to consider is
whether
petitioner
was
guilty
of
misrepresentation and concealment in her
application form and in her affidavit. Since
the petitioner had provided false information,
her appointment was liable to be cancelled
without getting into the controversy as to
which Rules were applicable to her.

11. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by
the petitioner, it has been again reiterated
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the amendment carried out in U.P.
State Electricity Board Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 in the year 2015 was not
adopted by KESCO, and since the mother
of the petitioner was an employee of
KESCO, the amended Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975, would not be applicable to the
petitioner. It has been reiterated that the
petitioner had not submitted any false
affidavit. She had not concealed any
information and therefore, action taken by
the respondents terminating her service, is
liable to be set aside.

12. This Court having considered the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondents, as also gone carefully
through the pleadings on record and the
application submitted by the petitioner for
compassionate appointment. The very fact
that the petitioner had submitted an
application under the Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 called the उिरप्रदेश राज्य
ग्रवद्युत् पररषद सेवाकाल में मृत पररषदीय
सेवक के आग्रश्रत ों की भती ग्रनयमावली १९७४
would show that the petitioner claimed that
she was dependant on her mother who died
in harness and therefore, she needed
compassionate
appointment.
In
the
Application Form, in the column which
was relating to the details of persons
dependent on the deceased-employee, the
petitioner had mentioned the name of her
father as Rajeev Saxena aged about 56
years, and also herself. However, under the
column meant for "monthly income" and
"income from other sources, if any", the
petitioner has not written anything and left
such column blank. The petitioner was born
in 1992 and she filed the application in
April, 2021. She was more than 28 years of
age at the time of her application. She was
well educated as she was B.Tech in
(Information Technology). A deliberate
concealment of the annual income of the
father who was shown as dependent on the
mother, (i.e, the deceased-employee) had
been resorted by the petitioner. In the
declaration made in the Application form,
she had stated that no other family member
had been given appointment under the 1975
Rules and that all the information supplied
by her in her Application form was true and
in case it was not found true then her
selection/appointment may be cancelled. In
the affidavit filed by the petitioner on
14.6.2021, the petitioner stated that she
intended to take care of the family
members of the deceased-employee and
therefore, had applied for compassionate
appointment, and that she will take care of
the family of the deceased-employee as her
mother had done during her life time. She
had also stated that all the contents of the
affidavit had been filled up by her correctly
and truthfully and that nothing had been
concealed.

13. It was only after the petitioner was
appointed, she submitted a Verification
form where for the first time she disclosed
that her father was working in U.P. Police
and was having an annual income of Rs.
12,20,000/- and that the petitioner and her
family were living in Type-III quarter in
Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow and that
she was 26 years of age at the time of her
filling up of the verification form. Her
father while submitting his affidavit in
response to the letter sent by KESKO stated
that
he
was
working
as
Inspector
(Accounts)
in
U.P.
Police
Commissionarate, Lucknow, and the time
of death of his wife, Smt. Kumkum Saxena
and also for the past 10 years, their
daughter Khushbu Saxena was for certain
reasons relating to family circumstances
completely dependent upon her mother
1 All. Khushboo Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1131
who had raised her, and was responsible for
her education also. In the affidavit filed by
the father of the petitioner, there is no
mention of any judicial separation or any
decree of competent court saying that Smt.
Kumkum Saxena was living with the
petitioner separately from her father Rajeev
Saxena.

14. This Court has also perused the
reply of the father to the show cause notice.
The reply submitted by the petitioner to the
show cause notice issued to her stated that
her father had already replied through
affidavit
on
22.7.2021
and
since
information which was being demanded
from her was actually related to her father
and her father had submitted his affidavit,
there was no reason for a separate reply to
be submitted by the petitioner.

15. Even if the petitioner's contention
that the amended Rules of 2015 were
inapplicable to the employees of the
KESCO is taken to be correct, this Court
cannot close its eyes to the subterfuge to
which the petitioner resorted while seeking
compassionate appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules, 1975 from the respondents.
The petitioner had filled up the Application
form showing her father and herself to be
dependent
upon
her
mother
and
deliberately not filling up column meant for
monthly income and income from other
sources. The Rules of 1974 are called Uttar
Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Sewakal
mein Mrit Sewakon Ke Ashriton Ki Bharti
Niyamwali-1975. The petitioner was not a
dependent on her deceased mother and
therefore even the unammended Rules of
1975, were inapplicable to her.

16. Additionally, the petitioner had
been given appointment on 24.6.20221
and as soon as the Verification form was
filled
up
by
the
petitioner,
the
concealment/
misrepresentation
was
discovered by the respondents and she
was given a show cause notice and
sufficient opportunity to place her case.
She was not a confirmed employee, but
only a probationer.

17. This Court finds no good ground
to
show
interference
in
the
order
impugned more so in view of the
observations
made
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Case of State of
Maharashtra and Another Vs. Madhuri
Maruti Vidhate 2002 SCC Online SC
1327. The Supreme Court in the said case
has made the following observations :-

"9. In the recent decision, this Court
in the case of Director of Treasuries in
Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree,
2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion
to consider the principle governing the
grant of appointment on compassionate
ground. After referring to the decision of
this Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of
Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court
has summarised the principle governing
the
grant
of
appointment
on
compassionate ground as under:-

(i)
that
the
compassionate
appointment is an exception to the
general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public
post in the service of the State has to be
made on the basis of the principle in
accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate
ground can be made only on fulfilling the
norms laid down by the State's policy
and/or satisfaction of the eligibility
criteria as per the policy;
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of
the consideration of the application should
be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.

10. As per the law laid down by this
Court in catena of decisions on the
appointment on compassionate ground, for
all
the
government
vacancies
equal
opportunity should be provided to all
aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. However, appointment
on compassionate ground offered to a
dependent of a deceased employee is an
exception
to
the
said
norms.
The
compassionate ground is a concession and
not a right.

11. In the case of State of Himachal
Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had
an occasion to consider the object and
purpose of appointment on compassionate
ground and considered the decision of this
Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma
Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in
paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as
under:-

"21. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered
subsequently in several decisions. But, before
we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to
note that the nature of compassionate
appointment had been considered by this
Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles
which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line of
precedents in this Court. These principles are
encapsulated in the following extract:
(Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC
138], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the
public services should be made strictly on
the basis of open invitation of applications
and merit. No other mode of appointment
nor any other consideration is permissible.
Neither the Governments nor the public
authorities are at liberty to follow any
other procedure or relax the qualifications
laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are
some exceptions carved out in the interests
of
justice
and
to
meet
certain
contingencies. One such exception is in
favour of the dependants of an employee
dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury
and
without
any
means
of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet,
a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful
employment
to
one
of
the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
Government
or
the
public
authority
concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and
it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not
be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be
offered to the eligible member of the family.
The favourable treatment given to such
dependant of the deceased employee in
such posts has a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved viz. relief
1 All. Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1133
against destitution. It must be remembered
in this connection that as against the
destitute family of the deceased there are
millions of other families which are
equally, if not more destitute. The exception
to the rule made in favour of the family of
the deceased employee is in consideration
of the services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectations, and the change in
the status and affairs, of the family
engendered by the erstwhile employment
which are suddenly upturned."

26. The judgment of a Bench of two
Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State
of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has
adopted the principle that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment, but a means to enable the
family of the deceased to get over a sudden
financial crisis. The financial position of
the family would need to be evaluated on
the basis of the provisions contained in the
scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
590] has been duly considered, but the
Court observed that it did not appear that
the earlier binding precedents of this Court
have been taken note of in that case."

12. Thus, as per the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions,
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule of appointment in the
public services and is in favour of the
dependents of a deceased dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood, and in
such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the
fact that unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made
in the rules to provide gainful employment
to one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment.
The
whole
object
of
granting
compassionate employment is, thus, to
enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis. The object is not to give such family
a post much less a post held by the
deceased.

13. Applying the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts
of the case on hand, to appoint the
respondent now on compassionate ground
shall be contrary to the object and purpose
of appointment on compassionate ground.
The respondent cannot be said to be
dependent on the deceased employee, i.e.,
her mother."

15.

The
writ
petition
stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Writ-A No. 20984 of 2022

Vinay Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Daya Shanker Yadav, Sri Rakesh Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Vinay Kumar Singh

A.
Education
Law
-
Constitutional
validity
of
prescribing
minimum
qualification
-
The
Minimum
Qualification For Teachers in Pharmacy
Institution
Regulations,2014;
Pharmacy Act, 1948: Section 10, 18.