Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Shri Dharmendra Sharma

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A.P. Pasayat
Lokeshwar Singh Pant
Judgment Date: 2007-09-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The High Court’s order is set aside to the extent it directed appointment on compassionate grounds against Group‑D posts; CAT’s direction is not to be maintained. It is clarified that if KVS later adopts a compassionate‑appointment scheme for Group‑D posts and intends to recruit accordingly, the respondent’s case shall be duly considered, but no opinion is expressed on eligibility.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed with directions and clarification regarding future compassionate‑appointment considerations for Group‑D posts.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Respondents

Shri Dharmendra Sharma

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Rajappa
• Jayaraman

Counsels for Respondents

• Manoj Swamp
• Lalita Kohli
• A.K. Tripathi
• Manoj Swamp & Co.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns compassionate appointment in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) where the father of the respondent died in service in 1999. The respondent sought compassionate appointment against 5% of Group-D vacancies. The KVS rejected the request; the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed relief directing appointment on compassionate grounds against 5% of Group-D vacancies, and the High Court dismissed the respondent’s petition challenging that order. The appellant challenged before the Supreme Court, arguing that a policy decision had been taken not to make appointments in Group-D posts and that such policy was applicable to the manner in which KVS hires for these posts. The Supreme Court held that the policy decision was not challenged in the CAT or High Court, and thus those courts should have examined the policy’s applicability rather than directing appointments contrary to it. The Court set aside the CAT/High Court directive to appoint on compassionate grounds in Group-D posts and clarified that if KVS later adopts any compassionate appointment scheme for Group-D posts, the respondent’s case will be duly considered; it did not express any opinion on the respondent’s eligibility. The appeal was partly allowed, with the High Court’s order set aside to that extent.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the appellants contended that a policy decision not to make appointments to Group‑D posts has been taken, and the 5% compassionate‑appointment quota is not applicable to KVS’s own regulations. Since the policy decision was not challenged, the Tribunal and High Court ought to examine its applicability rather than directing an appointment contrary to policy. If KVS ever decides to adopt a compassionate‑appointment scheme for Group‑D posts, the respondent’s case should be considered. The court should refrain from directing appointments while policy remains in force and express no opinion on eligibility.

Contentions of Respondents

Counsel for the respondent argued that the policy decision was not fully covered; certain categories of Group‑D posts were not encompassed by the policy. The Tribunal and High Court did not address the policy’s scope, and the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment should be treated in accordance with the existing policy and the eventual vacancy situation. The respondent’s grievance is that contractual methods should not undermine compassionate relief, and his name should remain on a panel for consideration as vacancies arise.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

J # KENDRIY A VIDYALA YA SANGA THAN AND ORS. _v._ # SHRI DHARMENDRA SHARMA SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 # (DR. ARIJITPASA Y AT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A,JJ.J ## _Service Law:_ _Compassionate appointment-Appointment against quota reserved for compassionate appointment denied to respondent on ground of policy_ C _decision-Correctness of-Held: A policy decision not to make appointment in Group 'D' posts taken by the appellant-organisation was not challenged by the respondent-Courts b<;/ow did not refer to the policy decision before arriving at the findings-Hence, direction of Central Administrative Tribunal to appellant-organisation to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground_ D _against quota reserved for such posts, as affirmed by the High Court, cannot be maintained-However, [f the appellant at any point of time, adopt any compassionate appointment scheme and intends to make appointment in Group 'D' posts, the case of the respondent shall be duly consideredDirections issued_ E Father of the respondent was employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and died in harness on 17.9.1999. An application filed by the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the authorities. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by it directing the appellant to appoint the F respondent on compassionate ground. Despite the directions, prayer of the respondent was rejected by the appellant vide its order dated 18.9.2001. The order was challenged by the respondent before the CAT by filing another petition. The Tribunal, while granting relief to the respondent, directed that respondent's name should be kept on panel for appointment on cortapassionate ground and his case should be considered as and when vacancy arises. G Appellant challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-Organisation contended that a policy decisiou had been taken 1007 [2007] 9 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1008 t A not to make appointment of Group 'D' post Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal and the High Court did not refer to the policy decision at all. (Para 6) (1010-A) B 1.2. Since the policy decision was not challenged, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal and the High Court to examine the applicability of the policy decision. No direction could have been given to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to act ctontrary to its policy decision. Therefore, the decision by CAT as affirmedby the High Court cannot be maintained. However, it is made clear if C at any point of time KVS wants to adopt any compassionate _appointments scheme and intends to make appointments in Group D posts, the case of the respondent shall be duly considered. It is clarified further that no opinion has been expressed as to the eligibility or otherwise of the respondent That is for KVS to decide. (Paras 6 and 7) (1010-A-C) D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4265 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2005 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. (C) Writ Petition No. 988 of 2003. E S. Rajappa and Jayaraman for the Appellants. > Manoj Swamp, Lalita Kohli A.K. Tripathi and Manoj Swamp & Co., for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order dated G 26.11.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 'CAT') in OA 35/i002. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: _(_ Father of the respondent was employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan H (in short 'KVS') and died in harness on 17.9.1999. Respondent filed an ## KEN.VIDY A.SANGATHANv. DHARMENDRASHARMA[PASA YAT,J.] l 009 application for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was rejected A by the appellants. The respondent filed OA/2000 before the CAT which was allowed and the Union of India and others were directed to consider the request of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground against 5% of the 53 Group-D vacancies available. Despite these directions, the prayer of the respondent was declined by order dated 18.9.2001. The order B was challenged before the CAT by filing OA 35/2002 which was decided on 26.11.2002. Said order was the subject matter of challenge before the High Court. 4. Reference was made before the CAT to the decision of the Government in notification dated 6.12.1976 which prohibited employment of contract Jabour C for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings in or occupied by establishments in respect of the Central Government. CAT rejected the plea primarily on the ground that after earlier decision of the CAT, the appellant did not have any right to reject the application of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that work of cleaning of school building or maintenance of garden had been given to private agencies. The D Tribunal, while granting relief to the respondent, directed that respondent's name should be kept on panel for appointment on compassionate ground and his case should be considered as and when vacancy arises. This view found acceptance of the High Court. It was of the view that it is a department which would create vacancy and department alone would take work from an employee E and not the contractor who may employ a person of his choice. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. ' 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a policy decision had been taken not to make appointment of Group 'D' post. It was submitted that the so called 5% reservation from posts of Group 'D' related to the Central F Government only and it did not apply to the appellants wbo had their own operative regulations and norms. By the said policy decision, KVS decided to privatize certain services of the schools as watch and ward duties of schools, cleaning of school buildings, toilets, class rooms including dusting of desks etc., proper maintenance of gardens, lawns and compound which were being carried out by the Chowkidars, Safai Karamcharis and Malis G respectively. In a sense, the KVS abolished the direct recruitment of Group 'D' employees. The office memorandum dated I 0.12.1999 related to privatization of certain services in schools of KVS. 6. There is no dispute that such a policy decision had been taken. What H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1010 A was contended by learned counsel for the respondent is that certain categories of Group 'D' posts were not covered by the policy decision. The Tribunal and the High Court did not refer to the policy decision at all. On the contrary, the High Court noted that contractor could employ person of his choice and not somebody who may be an applicant under compassionate appointment. That B is really of no relevance. Since the policy decision was not challenged, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal and the High Court to examine the applicability of the policy decision. No direction could have been given to KVS to act contrary to its policy decision. 7. Therefore, the decision by CAT as affirmed by the High Court cannot C be maintained. However, it is made clear if at any point of time KVS wants to adopt any compassionate appointments scheme and intends to make appointments in Group D posts, the case of the respondent shall be duly considered. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to the eligibility or otherwise of the respondent. That is for KVS to decide. D 8. The High Court's order is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.