THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERSversusREVAT SINGH

                   [2015] 2 S.C.R. 249



          THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD                            A
      TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
                            v.
                      REVATSINGH
              (CivilAppeal No.2061 of2015)
                   FEBRUARY 20, 2015                          B

     [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

     Service law - Compassionate appointment - Grant of,
when candidate ineligible for the post - On facts, father
employed as driver with the appellant-State Road Transport C
Corporation, died in harness - Son-respondent sought
compassionate appointment on the post of driver but his
application was rejected since he did not qualify for the post
- However, the High Court directed the appellant to consider
his case against the post of driver on compassionate ground 0
- Held: Court and tribunals do not have the power to issue
direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation
of eligibility or in contravention thereof- Thus, order passed
by the High Court is set aside as the respondent was not E
qualified for the post.

     l.G.[Karmik] and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi2007
(5) SCR 978: (2007) 6 SCC 162; Steel Authority of India
Limited v. Madhusudan Das 2008 ( 14) SCR 824 : (2008) 15
SCC 560; State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T Tiwari 2012 (7)    F
SCR 1072: (2012) 9 SCC 545- referred to.

                  Case Law Reference

    2007 (5) SCR 978             Referred to.   Para 8
                                                              G
    2008 (14) SCR 824            Referred to.   Para 9

    2012 (7) SCR 1072            Referred to.   Para 9


                           249                                H
250         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      2061 of2015
          From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2014 of the
      High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil
B     Special Appeal (W) No. 428 of2014
         S. K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam for the
      Appellants.
          Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.
C         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1.This appeal is directed
  against judgment and order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the
  High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in D.B. Civil Special
D Appeal (W) No. 428 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench
  declined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single
  Judge.
          2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and
      perused the record.
 E
        3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father
   of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant
   Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter
   referred to as the "Corporation"). He died in harness on
 F 26.6.2006. The respondent sought compassionate
   appointment on the post of driver. His educational qualification
   was 81h standard pass. The appellants considered the
   application for appointment on compassionate ground, and
   rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was not
 G qualified either for the post of driver or that of conductor. The
   respondent was accordingly communicated by the appellants
   vide letter dated 18.1.2008. The respondent made further
   correspondence in the matter after obtaining driving licence
   on 23.1.2007. However, said licence was not for heavy
 H vehicles. When the appellants did not accept request for
 THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. 251
       REVAT SINGH [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

appointment against the post of driver, the respondent filed A
writ petition no. 1892 of 2011 which was allowed by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 29.1.2014, directing the
appellant to consider case of the respondent for the post of
driver.
                                                                  B
     4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge,
the appellant filed intra court appeal, but the same was
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide
impugned order dated 1.5.2014 declining to interfere with the
order of learned Single Judge, and observed that the said order   c
advances the cause of justice considering the hardship faced
by the family of deceased employee. However, it was further
observed by the Division Bench that the order would be treated
to have been passed in the special facts and circumstances
of the case.                                                      D

     5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Rajasthan State
Road Corporation - submitted before this Court that the High
Court has erred in law in directing the appellant to consider
the case of respondent for appointment against the post of
driver on the compassionate ground. It is specifically pointed E
out that the respondent is not qualified for the post of driver as
he is neither matriculate nor possessed driving licence for
heavy vehicles.

     6. Shri Virender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the       F
 respondent, did not deny that the respondent was only 81h
 standard pass, and the driving licence obtained in the year
 2007, was in respect of light vehicles.

      7. During arguments, we are informed by learned counsel G
 for the appellant-Corporation that respondent has now been
·offered and engaged as Artisan Grade Ill. On behalf of the
 respondent, it is pleaded that the respondent be engaged at
 least against post of Artisan Grade 11. However, there is nothing
 on the record to show that such post is lying vacant nor is it H
252         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 2 S.C.R.


A clear that a person can be directly appointed to the post of
  Artisan Grade II.
           8. In l.G.(Karmik) and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi
      (2007) 6 SCC 162, this Court has held that compassionate
 8    appointment can not be granted to a post for which the
      candidate is ineligible. It is further held in said case that even
      though higher post was applied for on compassionate ground,
      when a lower post offered considering qualification and
      eligibility as per rules was accepted by the candidate, he cannot
c     claim higher post.
           9. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan
      Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560, this Court has clarified the law
      relating to compassionate appointments in following words:
 D        "15. This Court in a large number of decisions has
          held that the appointment on compassionate ground
          cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be
          provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor
          viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the
 E        family, must be established. It is meant to provide for
          a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised,
          the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making
          such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles
          14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all
 F        eligible candidates should be considered for
          appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant.
          Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a
          dependant of a deceased employee is an exception
          to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. (See
 G        SB/ v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 para 33.)"
       10. In State ofGujaratv. ArvindkumarT. Tiwari, (2012)
   9 sec 545, this Court while examining the law in the matters
   of compassionate appointment, has made following
 H observations:
THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. 253
      REVAT SINGH [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

  "11. The courts and tribunals do not have the power          A
  to issue direction to make appointment by way of
  granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention
  thereof. In State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC
  165, this Court while dealing with a similar issue
  rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held           B
  as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31)

      "31 . ... The courts as also the tribunals have
      no power to override the mandatory
      provisions of the Rules on sympathetic                   c
      consideration that a person, though not
      possessing the essential educational
      qualifications, should be allowed to continue
      on the post merely on the basis of his
      experience. Such an order would amount to                D
      altering or amending the statutory provisions
      made by the Government under Article 309
      of the Constitution."

  "12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for
                                                               E
  admission to a course falls within the exclusive
  domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the
  subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be
  arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without
  keeping in mind the nature of service, for which
                                                               F
  appointments are to be made, or has no rational
  nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the
  statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the
  purpose ofpromotion, unilaterally and the person
  seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance
                                                               G
  that he should be governed only by the rules existing,
  when he joined service. In the matter of appointments,
  the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far
  as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must
  meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should   H
254          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A          therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the
           appointments so made, or the rejection of a
           candidature is found to have been done at the cost of
           "fair play", "good conscience" and "equity". (Vide State
           of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma (1999)3 sec 653 and
 B         Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 8 sec
           633.)"

           11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court
      as above, we are of the opinion that since the respondent was
c     not qualified for the post of driver, as such the High Court erred
      in law in directing the appellant to consider his case against
      the post of driver of heavy vehicle.
        12. Therefore in the above circumstances, this appeal
   deserves to be allowed as the respondent is not qualified for
 D the post of driver. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However,
   the respondent shall be allowed to work on the post of Artisan
   Grade 111 as offered to him. No order as to cost.

      Nidhi Jain                                        Appeal allowed.