# li " it THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC v. SAMSUZ ZOHA ETC. ,•

- **Citation:** [1996] 3 S.C.R. 807
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-03-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 7086-87 E of 1996
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Patianaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/li-it-the-state-of-bihar-and-ors-etc-v-samsuz-zoha-etc-14226
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

B
service Law :
.~ . '
Appointment on compassionate grounds-Co-Operative Department of
Govemment of Bihar-Vacancies of Class IV. and , Class III posts---State C
Govemment taking a policy decision' to make all appointments on compassionate grounds to class IV posts irrespective of qualiftcations of individuals
and reserving class III posts to be filled by "promotion-Some of the candidates appointed to class. IV posts filing 'a writ petiiion in High Court for
appointment to class III posts-High Court directing the· Government to
appoint the petitioners to. class III posts either by promotion or by fresh D
appointmenl-Held, High Court not justified in·giving directiims---Ihere is no
right vested in •the candidate.i for particular appointment 011 compassionate·
grounds---Ihe principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be
'-I
unjustified or illegal.
·

## Text

.li "
it
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.
A
v.
SAMSUZ ZOHA ETC. ,• :
MARCH 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]
B
service Law :
.~ . '
Appointment on compassionate grounds-Co-Operative Department of
Govemment of Bihar-Vacancies of Class IV. and , Class III posts---State C
Govemment taking a policy decision' to make all appointments on compassionate grounds to class IV posts irrespective of qualiftcations of individuals
and reserving class III posts to be filled by "promotion-Some of the candidates appointed to class. IV posts filing 'a writ petiiion in High Court for
appointment to class III posts-High Court directing the· Government to
appoint the petitioners to. class III posts either by promotion or by fresh D
appointmenl-Held, High Court not justified in·giving directiims---Ihere is no
right vested in •the candidate.i for particular appointment 011 compassionate·
grounds---Ihe principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be
'-I
unjustified or illegal.
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7086-87 E
of 1996 Etc:
. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.95 .and 26.10.94 of the
Patna High Court in M.J.C. No. 727/95 and C.W.J.C. No. 8550 of 1993.
~ ' . . .
'· '
.
. .
.
Altaf Ahmed, Additionai"Solicitor .General: Anil Kumar Jha, M.M.
Kashyap, B.B. Singh, S.B. Upadhyay and Gopal Singh, for the appearing
parties.
· The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 2383-2384 of 1996.,. "
We have heard learned. counsel on both sides.
F
G
· · A rather unfortunate situation has been created by the .order~ of the
High Court in interfe~ing with the appointmenis made on compassionate H
•
807
.
.
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 3 S.C.R.
A ground by the Government. These appeals by special leave arise from
different orders of the High Court of Patna. The first batch taken up is of
appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2383-84/96. In this case the Government had resolved to appoint on compassionate ground the dependent son
or daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness. A long list of
B persons awaiting such appointments was prepared by the Co-operative
Department. The Department recommended candidates for certain posts
depending upon the quatifications etc. A committee was constituted by the
Government consisting of the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Additional Secretary and the Registrar of the Co-operative Department. The
Committe.e had first identified the vacant posts and then decided to make
C recommendations of the candidates. At that time since more than 40 posts
of Class JV was available, the committee had recommended appointment
of all the candidates as Class JV employees. It is also seen that 12 posts in
Class III were available but they kept reserved for promotion from existing
Class IV employees. The candidates who were· appointed as Class JV
D approached the High Court by way of writ petition the first of which is
CWJC No: 739/1991 titled Ghidharya Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
The High Court by order dated August 26, 1991 directed the respondents
to consider afresh their appointments to any one of the Class III posts
either by promotion or fresh appointment whichever was possible in accordance with the rules and regulations. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents
E
filed a Review Petition. After considerable delay, the Review Petition came
to be dismissed and appointments were directed to be made by April 30,
1992. Consequently, the appellant did not come in appeal to this Court
against that order which thus has become final. Following the above order
directions have been given in respect of different persons who had filed
F separate writ petitions. Jn some of the cases the appeals have now came to
be filed before us.
The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court
is right in giving directions to appoint them afresh or give them promotion? It is not in dispute that there is no right vested in the candidates for
G particular appointment on compassionate grounds. The State had taken
policy decision to appoint all the candidates irrespective of the qualifications as Class IV post and, therefore, the committee consisting of the
Secretary, Addi. Secretary and the Registrar met and decided the principle
that all the ~vailable posts in Class JV should be made available to the
H candidates in the awaiting list for appointment on compassionate grounds.
J
I
•
STA TE v. SAMSUZ ZOHA
809
r- •
12 posts available in Class III were reserved fo; appointment by promotion A
to the Class IV candidates who were en\itle.d thereto as per the rutes. The
principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be unjustified or
illegal. Undoubtedly, some candidates had gone to the Court and obtained
orders and in compliance thereof, at pain of contempt petition, the
Government, instead of appointing them to Cfass IV pcists since by then B
the Class III posts were not available, upgraded Class IV post as Class III
post and confirmed them as Class III employees. That order which was
wrongly made by the High .Court cannot be a base to issue directions. In
other words, if the directions are complied with all the Class IV posts
would be converted into Class' III posts which is agafost the discipline of
the service. The High' Court, therefore, was rtot justified in i~suirtg direc- ' C
tions in all the. cases for appointment to Cla~s III. post. "
.
• .. •
'
~
•
•
<.
--
'
•
'
Appeals are accordingly1allowed.but in the circumstances without
costs. It· is needless to mention. that their cases would be considered and
appointment made against the available vacancy in the order of seniority
to t~e Class IY.·. · :post.
._
. ,
D
r J .
~ . J)
..,.
SLP (C) NO. 18334 of 1995
'.J Special Leave Petition is· dismissed.
R.P:
·'' ''"!.
'·
·1'
..
'
I;_·
"'
I';,.
I '
~(':
,
,}.
~
•
. '
. , .
Appeal; ai1o~ed .
't '.
,_,_,,,·
..• ·
rf
/.
,,
•
•
. ·-,_,-~P
. ·J