Summary
Two dependants of government servants who died in harness were appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistants in Uttar Pradesh. Under the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, as amended in 2014, they had to attain a typing speed of 25 words per minute within one year plus one extension. Each failed twice and was terminated. Following its decision in Mukul Sagar, the Allahabad High Court directed the State to consider them for Class IV posts instead. The Court held the terminations lawful under the appointment orders and the Rules. There is no vested right to compassionate appointment, which is an exception to Article 16 granting only an entry-level concession. Once appointed, such employees must meet the same service conditions as others. Mukul Sagar was disapproved without disturbing the appointment made under it, and both appeals were allowed.
Issues
- Whether an employee appointed on compassionate grounds, whose services were terminated for failing the typing test required by the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, could be directed to be considered for a Class IV post instead.
Provisions considered
- Rule 5(1) and its proviso, Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as amended by the Tenth Amendment Rules, 2014An appointee to a post requiring computer and typing skills must acquire a CCC certificate and 25 wpm typing within one year, with one further year of extension, failing which his services are dispensed with. The terminations were in terms of this rule. (¶¶ 3, 4, 9, 11, 12)
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaCompassionate appointment is an exception to equality of opportunity in public employment. Granting further concessions after appointment, beyond what the rules provide, would violate Articles 14 and 16. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Held
- Each appointment order and the proviso to Rule 5(1) required the appointee to attain 25 wpm in typing within a year, failing which his increment would be withheld and one more year given. Failure in the extended period would end his service. The respondent failed despite two opportunities, so his termination accorded with the order and the Rules. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 9, 12)
- There is no vested right to compassionate appointment. It is an exception to Article 16, offered to help a family over the financial crisis caused by the death of its earning member, and its terms must be complied with. (¶ 10)
- Compassionate appointment is only an entry-level concession. Once appointed, all employees must meet the same service conditions irrespective of their mode of appointment, unless the rules provide otherwise. Further concessions not provided by the rules would offend Articles 14 and 16. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The High Court could not direct appointment to an alternate Class IV post, as that would come at the expense of others awaiting compassionate appointment or eligible in open competition. Mukul Sagar was plainly erroneous, but the appointment granted to its petitioner is not to be disturbed. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Both appeals allowed. The judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside and the respondents' writ petitions are dismissed.