Summary
The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of compassionate appointments granted to dependants who attained majority and applied beyond the period permitted by the amended Karnataka rules. Compassionate appointment creates no vested right on the employee’s death; the norms prevailing when an application is considered govern the claim. The transitional provision did not save applications made contrary to amended Rule 5. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether compassionate appointment claims were governed by the rules at the employee’s death or at consideration.
- Whether amended Rule 5 or the transitional Rule 9(3) permitted the appellants’ appointments.
Provisions considered
- Rule 5, as amended with effect from 1 April 1999, Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996Requires the minor dependant to attain eighteen and apply within one year of the employee’s death, subject to the specified saving for pending applications. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Rule 9(3), introduced on 28 May 2002, Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996The transitional extension excludes applications made contrary to the amended first proviso to Rule 5. (¶¶ 9, 13)
Held
- Compassionate appointment is a concession and an exception to equal opportunity in public employment. Aspirants must satisfy the governing policy and rules; the employee’s death does not itself confer a vested right to appointment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 19, 20)
- The norms prevailing when the application is considered govern consideration. The dependants could demand consideration of their applications, but not application of the rules prevailing on their parents’ deaths. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 20)
- The appellants attained majority two to six years after their parents’ deaths and applied after the 1999 amendment became operative. Their applications violated amended Rule 5; the validity of that amendment was not challenged. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 21)
- Rule 9(3) did not validate these appointments because its transitional benefit expressly excluded the relevant applications made in contravention of amended Rule 5. The absence of misconduct in Sayeda Farheen Banao’s case did not establish eligibility under the appointment rules. (¶¶ 8.3, 8.4, 13, 21)
Result
Appeals dismissed; Tribunal and High Court decisions upholding cancellation of the appellants’ compassionate appointments affirmed.