The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kavita vs Delhi High Court & Anr. consisting of Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule that appointment should be made only based on merit.
Facts:
This writ petition was brought to challenge the respondents’ letter of May 26, 2022, in which the petitioner’s request for a compassionate appointment was denied. Additionally, the petitioner asked for an order telling the respondents to assign her to an appropriate Group-D position out of compassion.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the person's husband, who worked at the court, died when he was only 42 years old. This left the petitioner and their three young children without any money to live on. It was also contended that the petitioner applied for a job that would help them because their husband died while working for the government. But even though they waited for eight months, the Government said no to their application without giving a good reason. It was further contended that this was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Respondents: It was argued that during its meeting on May 13, 2022, the Committee for the Appointment of Officials of the High Court properly considered the petitioner's application together with three other representations. It was also argued that forty-one (41) positions had already been filled through compassionate appointments, far exceeding the quota that was available for such appointments. It was emphasized that the petitioner’s application was turned down because there was no opening for a compassionate appointment.
Observations of the Court:
According to the Bench, compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rule that candidates should only be hired based on their merit. The goal of a compassionate appointment is to assist a deceased person's family in overcoming their financial hardship and getting through an emergency. Therefore, citing Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. amongst other cases, it noted that it is well established legal precedent that appointments made on compassionate grounds are an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services must be done in a transparent and accountable manner by giving all eligible persons the opportunity to compete and participate in the selection process.
Judgment:
The Bench stated that a total of forty-one (41) positions were filled on compassionate grounds in addition to the thirty-one (31) positions that were available under the five percent (5%) quota of six hundred and seventeen (617) direct recruitment positions as a result of an oversight. Consequently, there were already ten (10) surplus or excessive compassionate appointments. As a result, it was believed that the respondents’ decision to file the complaint was well-founded and valid. As a result, this writ petition was rejected along with the pending application due to lack of merit.
Case: Kavita vs Delhi High Court & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) 8861/2022 & C.M.No.26679/2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
For Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Dashmesh Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondents: Ms. Padampriya, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
