Delhi Jal Board vs Nirmala Devi

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL N0. 7047 OF 2022 (Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) No. 20935/2021)

Delhi Jal Board …Appellant

Versus

Nirmala Devi …Respondent

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2871/2021, by which the High Court has

dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant – Delhi Jal

Board and has confirmed the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1420/2017, by which the Signature Not Verified

Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the candidature of the Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2022.10.19 17:18:31 IST Reason: 1 respondent for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), the original

opponent - Delhi Jal Board has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the respondent herein applied for compassionate

appointment of her daughter in the Delhi Jal Board – the appellant

herein for the post of LDC. The said application was made on

23.03.2010. That by order dated 01.05.2012, the respondent’s daughter

was appointed as Assistant Meter Reader considering her qualification at

the time when application for compassionate appointment was made.

According to the respondent, she was eligible for the post of LDC.

2.1 The respondent then approached the Tribunal by way of Original

Application No. 1420/2017 claiming the appointment of her daughter on

the post of LDC. It was the case on behalf of the respondent that by the

time the application for compassionate appointment came to be

considered in 2012, her daughter acquired the requisite qualification for

the post of LDC, i.e., Graduation. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of

the respondent that she ought to have been appointed on the post of

LDC. The Tribunal accepted the same and directed the appellant –

Delhi Jal Board to appoint the respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.

The order passed by the Tribunal dated 3.5.2019 in O.A. No. 1420/2017

was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court at the

instance of the appellant herein. By the impugned judgment and order,

2 the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, which has given rise

to the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

vehemently submitted that qualification for the post of LDC was

Graduation. It is submitted that admittedly when the respondent applied

for appointment on compassionate grounds for the post of LDC, i.e.,

23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and therefore she was not

having the requisite qualification for the post of LDC.

3.1 It is submitted that subsequent acquiring of the qualification for the

post of LDC cannot be considered and the qualification prevailing when

the application for compassionate appointment was made is required to

be considered. It is submitted that therefore both, the Tribunal and the

High Court have committed a very serious error in directing the appellant

to appoint respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.

4. While opposing the present appeal, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent has made the following submissions:

i) that the time limit for making appointment on compassionate

grounds was five years. Therefore, when the respondent’s daughter

acquired the requisite qualification for the post of the LDC within five

years, she ought to have been appointed on the post of LDC,

considering acquisition of the graduation qualification within five years;

3

ii) that as per the Policy for compassionate appointments, while

considering the appointment on compassionate grounds, only bar with

respect to age shall be applicable and not with respect to educational

qualification. In support of above, reliance is placed on clause 6 (A &

B) of the Policy which provides for Exemptions and Relaxations, while

making compassionate appointments; and

iii) that the relevant date for considering the educational qualification

shall be the date on which the application for compassionate

appointment was considered and not the date on which the application

for compassionate appointment was made.

4.1 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeal.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

considering the facts narrated hereinabove both, the Tribunal and the

High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellant to

appoint the respondent’s daughter on the post of LDC.

6. When the respondent made an application for compassionate

appointment on 23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and the

requisite qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was

Graduation. Therefore, the date on which the respondent applied for

compassionate appointment, her daughter was not having the requisite

qualification for the post of LDC. As per settled position of law, the

4 qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate

appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the

application for compassionate appointment is considered.

7. The submission on behalf of the respondent that as the application

for compassionate appointment was permissible within a period of five

years and the respondent’s daughter acquired the graduation

qualification within a period of five years, the respondent’s daughter can

be said to be eligible for appointment on the post of LDC. The aforesaid

submission cannot be accepted. Once the application for compassionate

appointment is made, the qualification which the applicant possess on

the date of application is to be considered. Similarly, the submission on

behalf of the respondent that for compassionate appointments, only the

bar with respect to age shall be applicable and not with respect to

educational qualification cannot be accepted. The compassionate

appointment is required to be made on the post considering the

educational qualification of the applicant on the date of

application/dependant of the deceased employee. Therefore, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, the department rightly appointed

the respondent’s daughter on the post of Assistant Meter Reader

considering her qualification at the time of making the application for

compassionate appointment.

5

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated

05.03.2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2871/2021 and that of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 03.05.2019

passed in O.A. No. 1420/2017 directing the appellant herein to consider

the candidature of the respondent’s daughter for the post of LDC are

unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and

are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Original

Application No. 1420/2017 preferred by the respondent herein for

appointment of her daughter on the post of LDC stands dismissed.

9. The instant appeal is allowed accordingly. However, there shall be

no order as to costs.

……………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J. OCTOBER 19, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

6