SHREEJITH L.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KERALA & ORS.

                   [2012] 6 S.C.R. 427


                   SHREEJITH L.                              A
                          v.
  DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KERALA & ORS.
        (Civil Appeal No. 4848 of 2012 etc.)
                      JULY 3, 2012
                                                             B
    [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

    SERVICE LAW:

     Compassionate appointment - Period of limitation for c
making application - Held: In view of the statutory rules and
Para 19 of G.O. dated 24.5.1999, application for
compassionate appointment has to be made within two years
from the date of death of the Government servant - In the case
of minors, the permissible period for making application is · 0
three years from the date the minor attains majority - An
application for appointment on compassionate basis has to
be made within the period stipulated for the purpose -
Availability of vacancy has nothing to do with the making of
the application itself - Kera/a Education Act - Kera/a E
Education Rules - rr. 9A and 518 - G.O. dated 24.5.1999.

     Compassionate appointment - Married daughter
claiming appointment on the ground of death of her
mother while in service - Application filed after 14 years
of attaining the majority - Held: Delay assumes greater      F
significance keeping in view the fact that the applicant
has got married and has now settled with her husband
comprising a separate family - Appointment of the
applicant may not in that view lead to any financial help
for the other members of the family left behind by the       G
deceased - Orders passed by the authorities allowing the
claim are set aside.

    Compassionate appointment - Format of application
                           427                               H
    428      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A - Held: The substance of the application is important and
  not the form - If the application in substance conveyed
  the request for a compassionate appointment and
  provided the information required for considering the
  request, the very fact that the information was not in a
B given format would not have been a good reason to turn
  down the request - The scheme is meant to be a
  beneficial one aimed at helping those in need of
  assistance on account of an untimely demise in the family
  - Constitution of India - Article 136.
c       The instant appeals arose out of the claims for
    compassionate appointment on teaching/non-teaching
    posts made by the dependants of the employees who
    died while in service in the State of Kerala on different
    teaching/non-teaching posts.
D
          Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. Appointments on compassionate basis are
  recognised as a permissible mode of induction into
E service under the Kerala Education Rules 'framed under
  the Kerala Education Act. It is evident from a plain reading
  of rr. 9A and 51 B that appointments under the statutory
  rules are further regulated by the terms of government
  orders issued on the subject. A conjoint reading of the
  Statutory Rules and para 19 of the Government Order
F dated 24.05.1999 would show that the compassionate
  appointment scheme itself permits applications to be
  made within two years from the date of death of the
  government servant. In the case of minors the
  permissible period for making applications is three years
G from the date the minor attains majority. [para 9 and 11]
  [435-G-H; 436-H; 437-A-B]

       2.1 In the case of respondent no. 5 in C.A. No. 4848
  of 2012, the application for appointment as a Lower Grade
H Sanskrit Teacher was made within three years of his
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 429
                KERALA & ORS.
attaining majority. It is manifest that the scheme not only    A
permitted making of an application but when read in
conjunction with r. 9A entitled respondent No.5 to seek
such an appointment subject to his fulfilling other
requirements stipulated in the scheme. It is nobody's case
that respondent No.5 did not satisfy other conditions          B
stipulated in the Government Order nor was his request
for appointment as Junior Grade Sanskrit Teacher
rejected on any such ground. That being so, the High
Court was justified in holding that the prayer for
appointment made by respondent No.5 should have                c
been allowed. [para 11] [437-B-D]
     2.2 It is true that the appellant had worked for nearly
five years after his appointment against the vacancy but
it is equally true that he could not legally oppose or
grudge the claim made by respondent No.5 in the light          D
of the provisions of the scheme and the statutory rules
on the subject, particularly, when his appointment itself
had been made entirely at the discretion of the Manager
of the institution, and was not preceded by any public
notice or advertisement inviting candidates from the open      E
market to apply for appointment against the available
vacancy on the basis of competitive selection process.
There is no reason to interfere with the view taken by the
High Court. [para 12] [437-E-H; 438-A]
                                                               F
     3. Respondent No.1 in C.A. No. 4954 of 2009 had
attained majority on 8.5.1995 whereas the application for
compassionate appointment was made on 10.9.2007. This
application was, on the face of it, beyond the period
stipulated in the scheme for making such a claim. The          G
High Court appears to have confused an application
required to be filed within the period stipulated for the
purpose, with the availability of a vacancy against which
such an application could be considered by the Manager.
These were two distinctly different matters. What was
important was the making of an application for                 H
    430    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A appointment on compassionate basis within the period
  stipulated for the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is
  available had nothing to do with the making of the
  application itself. Respondent No.1 having failed to make
  the application within the period stipulated in the scheme,
B could not claim a compassionate appointment especially
  when there was nothing on record to suggest that the
  family was in penury notwithstanding the lapse of a
  considerable period since the demise of the bread-
  winner; during which period respondent No.1 had got
c married and settled down in life and supports a family.
  The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in issuing
  a mandamus to the Manager to appoint respondent no.
  1 on compassionate basis which order calls for
  interference and is reversed. [para 15] [439-C-G]
D        4. In the case of respondent No. 4 in C.A. No. 33421
    of 2009, the Manager of the school had on receipt of the
    application within the period of limitation, not only
    acknowledged the request for appointment but also
    recognised that the applicant: possessed the requisite
E   qualification for appointment as a Hindi Teacher. The
    request was not, however, granted as no vacancy in the
    cadre was available in the 'school at that time. If the
    application in substance conveyed the request for a
    compassionate appointment and .. provided the
F   information which the Manager required for considering
    the request, the very fact that the information was not in
    a given format would not have been a good reason to
    turn down the request. The scheme is meant to be a
    beneficial scheme aimed at helping those in need of
G   assistance on account of an untimely demise in the
    family. Inasmuch as the Assistant Educational Officer and
    even the High Court found respondent No.4 to be eligible
    for appointment and directed the Manager to make such
    an appointment, they committed no error to warrant
    interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution. [para 20]
H   [441-8-E-G]
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 431
                KERALA & ORS.

    5. In the case of respondent No.1 in C.A. No. 31908       A
of 2010, whose mother had died in harness and the father
was a Naval Officer, the application filed by her was
indeed belated having been filed 14 years after she
attained majority. There is no explanation, for the
inordinate delay. Delay assumes greater significance          B
keeping in view the fact that respondent No.1 has got
married and has now settled with her husband
comprising a separate family. The appointment of
respondent no. 1 may not in that view lead to any
financial help for the other members of the family left       c
behind by the deceased. While it is true that marriage by
itself does not in view of the language employed in the
scheme, disqualify the person concerned from seeking
a compassionate appointment, the fact remains that
delay of more than 14 years could itself prove fatal to the   D
prayer for a compassionate appointment. The orders
passed by 'tlle Educational Officer and the Government
allowing the claim and those by the High Court in the writ
petition and in writ appeal upholding the orders of the
Department are, therefore, unsustainable and, as such,
                                                              E
set aside. [para 24] [443-C-E]

     6.1 As regards respondent no. 7 in C.A. No. 4467 of
2010, upon remand the District Educational Officer
correctly found him to be eligible for an appointment
having made an application in time. The said order was        F
erroneously set aside by the single Judge of the High
Court on the ground that the application had been filed
beyond the period of limitation. The error was, however,
corrected by the Division Bench by holding that the
refusal of the Manager in accepting the application filed     G
for appointment of respondent No.7 was only a strategy
of the Manager to ward off the claim made before him.
The Division Bench also correctly held that if the
application was found to be defective for any reason the
Manager should have, instead of rejecting the same            H
    432      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A summarily given an opportunity to respondent No.7 to
  correct the mistake by filing a proper application in
  accordance with rules. [para 27] [445-F-H; 446-A]
         Baiju Kumar v. D.E.O., Trivandrum (2003) 3 KLT 240 -
    referred to.
8
       6.2 In case an application is made by legal heirs of a
  deceased employee claiming the benefit of the scheme
  for compassionate appointment, the deficiencies and
  defects, if any, in the said application ought to be pointed
C out to the concerned to enable him to remove the same
  within a reasonable time. But if the defects are not
  removed within the time granted, an adverse inference
  could be drawn against the person in default. On the
  contrary, where an application is filed, entertained and
o eventually declined for a reason other tharr the form in
  which the same ought to have been filed, the rejection
  cannot be supported before the higher authority or in the
  court on the ground that the application was non-est as
  the same was not in the prescribed form. The application
E for appointment filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 could
  not, therefore, have been rejected on the ground that the
  same was not in the prescribed form. However, his
  appointment shall be effective from the date he is actually
  appointed by the Manager of the Institution. [para 28-29]
F [447-C-E,H; 448-A-B]
                        Case Law Reference:
          (2003) 3 KLT 240      referred to         Para 28
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G 4848 of 2012 etc.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 07.02.2008 of the High
    Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 149 of 2008.
                                WITH
H C.A ..~os. 4852, 4851, 4854, 4853 & 4849-4850 of 2012.
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 433
                KERALA & ORS.
     C.S. Rajan, V. Giri, A. Raghunath, P.A. Noor Muhamed,    A
Giffara S., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,
Sureshan P., P. Sureshan, V.K. Sidharthan, Boby Augustine,
Ranjith K.C. Pillai, Ajay K. Jain, M.P. Vinod, Sadique
Mohammed, Neelam Saini, P.V. Dinesh, K.V. Mohan, Bina
Madhavan, Praseena E. Joseph, K. Rajeev for the appearing     B
parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                              c
      2. These appeals arise out of similar but different orders
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the
High Court has allowed the claim for compassionate
appointment made by the respondents and directed the
institutions concerned to appoint them to posts against which D
they are otherwise eligible for appointment. The factual
backdrop in which the writ petitions came to be filed by the
respondents and eventually allowed is different in each case
but the underlying principle on which the said petitions have
been allowed and the provisions on the basis whereof the same E
have been allowed being common, we propose to dispose of
these appeals by this common judgment.

     3. In Civil Appeal arsing out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.7556 of 2008 father of respondent No.5 who was working
as a 'Peon' in a school known as SHGSHS, Kadakkodu, died- F
in-harness on 14th October, 2000. Respondent No.5 was a
minor aged about 16 years at that time. He attained majority
on 21st April, 2002. His mother all the same applied for a
compassionate appointment under the prevalent
Compassionate Employment Scheme to the Deputy Director G
(Education) who informed her that respondent No.5 could apply
to the management for an appointment as and when he attained
majority. The petitioner accordingly applied for appointment as
a Sanskrit Teacher on 7th February, 2005. It is not in dispute
                                                              H
    434      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012) 6 S.C.R.


A   that he had the requisite qualification for appointment against
    the said post.

         4. The post of a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher fell vacant
    in the school on 1st June, 2005, but respondent No.5 was
    informed that his claim will be considered in the next arising
8
    vacancy of a non-teaching staff in the school. Even though a
    representation made to the District Educational Officer resulted
    in a direction to the Manager of the institution to consider the
    claim of respondent No.5 yet an appointment order was issued
    by the Manager in favour of the appellant herein in preference
C   to the claim made by the former.

          5. Aggrieved by the denial of an appointment in his favour,
    respondent No.5 filed W.P. (C) No.21503/2006 in the High
    Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. During the pendency of the said
D   petition a vacancy of a 'Peon' arose in the school, which was
    offered to him by the Manager. The High Court disposed of the
    writ petition permitting respondent No.5 to accept the offer
    made to him by the Manager and to file a separate petition for
    redressal of his grievance if he continued to feel aggrieved. His
E   appointment as 'Peon' thus remained without prejudice to the
    respondent-petitioner's claim against the post of Junior Sanskrit
    Teacher in the school.

        6. Pursuant to the liberty reserved in his favour, respondent
  No.5 filed W.P. (C) No.16399/2007 in the High Court praying
F for a certiorari quashing the appointment of the appellant herein
  and a mandamus directing the Manager to appoint respondent
  No.5-writ petitioner in his place as a full time Junior Sanskrit
  Teacher. A single Bench of the High Court allowed the said
  petition by an order dated 10th December, 2007 quashing the
G appointment of the appellant herein and directing the Manager
  to appoint respondent No.5 in his place effective from 1st
  August, 2006. The above order passed by the High Court was
  then assailed by the appellant herein in Writ Appeal No.149 of
  2008 which appeal has been dismissed by the High Court in
H terms of the order under challenge before us.
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 435
       KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
      7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned        A
senior counsel, contended that appointments on
compassionate basis are made only to give succour to a family
in financial distress on account of the untimely death of an
earning member. Such appointments cannot, therefore, be
made where the family concerned has managed to survive for           B
several years before the claim for appointment is made by
someone who was eligible for such appointment. He contended
that the claim for appointment in the instant case had been
made nearly five years after the demise of the father of
respondent No.5 which was liable to be rejected on the ground        c
of being highly belated. The High Court was, argued Mr. Rajan,
not justified in setting aside the appointment of the appellant
who had worked as a teacher and had been regularly
appointed, which appointment was approved even by the
Competent Authority in the Department of Education.
                                                                     D
     8. On behalf of respondent No.5 it was per contra argued
that appointments on compassionate basis were regulated by
statutory rules framed under the Kerala Education Act and the
Government Orders which were made applicable to such
appointments. An application filed within the period of limitation   E
under the prescribed rules could not, contended the learned.
counsel, be rejected on the ground of delay especially when the
intervening period was not shown to have resulted in any
material change in the economic status of the family who
continued to suffer in penury as on the date of demise of the        F
bread-winner of the family.

     9. Appointments on compassionate basis are recognised
as a permissible mode of induction into service under the
Kerala Education Rules framed .under the Kerala Education            G
Act. Rule 9A appearing in Chapter XXIVA and Rule 51 B
appearing in Chapter XIVA of the said Rules are relevant in
this regard. While Rule 9A deals with employment of
dependants of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying-
in-harness, Rule 51 B deals with employment of dependants of
                                                                     H
    436       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   an aided school teacher dying-in-harness. The said rules are
    as under:-

          "9A: The manager shall give employment to a dependant
          of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in
          harness. Government orders relating to employment
B
          assistance to the dependents of Government servants
          dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter
          of such appointment."

                                                  (emphasis supplied)
c
          "518: The Manager shall give employment to a dependant
          of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government
          orders relating to employment assistance to the
          dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall
0         mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such
          appointments."

       10. It is evident from a plain reading of the above that
  appointments under the statutory rules are further regulated by
  the terms of government orders issued on the subject.
E Government order dated 24th May, 1999 is in this regard
  relevant, for it stipulates the conditions of eligibility including the
  family income and the category of appointments that can be
  made under the compassionate scheme. Qualification for the
  post, age limit for making appointments and time for filing
F applications for compassionate appointments are matters
  regulated by the said order. Para 19 of the Government order
  stipulates the period of limitation for preferring applications and
  may be extracted:

G         "19. The time limit for preferring applications under the
          scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of govt.
          Servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3
          years after attaining majority."

       11. A conjoint reading of the Statutory Rules and para 19
H of the Government Order extracted above would show that the
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 437
       KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
compassionate appointment scheme itself permits applications         A
to be made within two years from the date of death of the
government servant. In the case of minors the permissible
period for making applications is three years from the date the
minor attains majority. It is not in dispute that the application
for appointment as a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher was made           B
by the respondent on 7th February, 2005 i.e. within three years
of his attaining majority. Such being the position under the
terms of the scheme, the validity or wisdom whereof is not under
challenge before us, it is manifest that the scheme not only
permitted making of an application but when read in conjunction      c
with Rule 9A entitled respondent No.5 to seek such an
appointment subject to his fulfilling other requirements
stipulated in the scheme. It is nobody's case that respondent
No.5 did not satisfy other conditions stipulated in the
Government Order nor was his request for appointment as              D
Junior Grade Sanskrit Teacher rejected on any such ground.
That being so, the High Court was justified in holding that the
prayer for appointment made to respondent No.5 should have
been allowed.

      12. It is true that the appellant had worked for nearly five   E
years after his appointment against the vacancy but it is equally
true that he could not legally oppose or grudge the claim made
by respondent No.5 in the light of the provisions of the scheme
and the statutory rules on the subject. That was particularly so
when the appointment of the appellant itself was not made on         F
the basis of any fair or competitive selection process or any
other transparent method aimed at evaluating the comparative
merit of all those qualified & interested in taking the job. The
appointment of the appellant, it was fairly conceded by Mr.
Rajan, had been made entirely at the discretion of the Manager       G
of the institution, and was not preceded by any public notice or
advertisement inviting candidates from the open market to
apply for appointment against the available vacancy. Be that
as it may, we are not so much concerned with the validity of
the appointment of the appellant in these proceedings as we          H
    438     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   are with the entitlement of respondent No.5 to seek an
    appointment in terms of the Statutory Rules and the prevalent
    scheme. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the view
    taken by the High Court. The appeal filed by the appellant must
    consequently fail.
B
          13. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
    (C) No.4954 of 2009, father of respondent No.1 had been
    working as the 'Headmaster' of East Valliyai, U.P. School, who
    died in harness on 27th April, 1995. Respondent No.1 was a
    minor at that time who attained majority only on 8th May, 1995
C   and has got married since then. On 21st July, 2007, the
    appellant-petitioner No.2 was appointed as a 'Peon' in the East
    Valliyai, U.P. School. It was thereafter on 10th September, 2007
    that respondent No.1 claimed a compassionate appointment.
    Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager1to consider
D   the said application by an order dated 24th April, 2008. The
    Manager, however, rejected the claim on the ground that the
    prayer for appointment was made belatedly. The District
    Educational Officer upheld the rejection in terms of his order
    dated 24th June, 2008. The matter was then brought up before
E   the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C) No.16815/
    2008 in which the writ petitioner, respondent No.1 before us,
    challenged the rejection of her claim for appointment on
    compassionate basis. By an order dated 20th October, 2008,
    a single Bench of the High Court allowed the said petition and
F   directed the Manager of the institution to appoint the writ
    petitioner against the vacancy of 'Peon' that had arisen on 30th
    June, 2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the Manager of the
    school filed Writ Appeal No.2211 of 2008 before a Division
    Bench of the High Court which appeal was dismissed by the
G   High Court in terms of its order dated 13th January, 2009
    impugned in this appeal.

      14. Appearing for the appellant ~twas contended by Mr.
  Rajan that the application filed by respondent No.1 was belated
  inasmuch as the same was filed 12 years after her attaining
H majority. He submitted that during the intervening ·period
SHREEJITH L. v DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 439
       KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
respondent No.1 had got married which clearly showed that the       A
family was not in penury to call for any sympathy towards it. The
High Court had according to Mr. Rajan, fallen in error in holding
that delay in the filing of the application was only technical in
nature as the vacancy against which the prayer for
compassionate appointment had been made had occurred                B
after about 13 years of the demise of the father of respondent
No.1.

      15. There is considerable merit in the contention urged by
Mr. Rajan. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 had attained   C
majority on the 8th of May, 1995 whereas the application for
compassionate appointment was made on 10th September,
2007. This application was, on the face of it, beyond the period
stipulated in the scheme for making such a claim. The High
Court appears to have confused an application required to be
filed within the period stipulated for the purpose with the         D
availability of a vacancy against which such an application
could be considered by the Manager. These were two distinctly
different matters. What was important was the making of an
application for appointment on compassionate basis within the
period stipulated for the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is      E
available had nothing to do with the making of the application
itself. An application could and indeed ought· to have been
made by respondent No.1 within the time stipulated, regardless
whether there was a vacancy already available or likely to
become available in the near or distant future. Respondent No.1     F
having failed to do that, could not claim a compassionate
appointment especially when there was nothing on record to
suggest that the family was in penury notwithstanding the lapse
of a considerable period since the demise of the bread-winner;
during which period respondent No.1 had got married and             G
settled down in life and supports a family. The High Court was
in that view clearly in error in issuing a mandamus to the
Manager to appoint the respondent on compassionate basis
which order calls for interference and is hereby reversed.
                                                                    H
     16. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A (C) No.33421 of 2009 father of respondent No.4 was working
  as a 'Peon' who died while in service on 9th September, 1988.
  Respondent No.4 applied to the Manager of the institution for
  a compassionate appointment on 2nd May, 1990. The
  Manager intimated to respondent No.4 by a letter dated 4th
B June, 1990 that as and when a vacancy occurs, he would be
  considered for appointment. Respondent No.4 applied again
  in the prescribed format against a vacancy on 25th May, 2002.

       17. On 5th June, 2002 the appellant herein was appointed
C as a teacher against the available vacancy of a Hindi Teacher.
  The request made by respondent No.4 was shortly thereafter
  rejected by the Manager by order dated 17th June, 2002. The
  Assistant Educational Officer, however, accepted the claim
  made by respondent No.4 and declined approval to the
  appointment of the appellant by its order dated 23rd
D September, 2002. The Assistant Educational Officer held that
  respondent No.4 was qualified for appointment against the post
  of Hindi Teacher and the Manager ought to have considered
  his prayer and appointed him. He accordingly directed the
  Manager to appoint respondent No.4 against the available
E vacancy.

         18. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred
    Writ Petition No. 7413 of 2007 before the High Court which was
    dismissed by a single Bench by its order dated 25th
F   September, 2009. Writ Appeal No.2186 of 2009 preferred
    against the said order was also dismissed by the Division
    Bench of the High Court in terms of its order dated 6th October,
    2009.

       19. Mr. Rajan, learned senior counsel, argued that the first
G application submitted by respondent No.4 for compassionate
  appointment on 2nd May, 1990 was no doubt within the time
  prescribed but the same was not in proper format. It was,
  argued the learned counsel, essential that the application
  should be not only within the time stipulated for the purpose but
H also in the prescribed format. Inasmuch as that was not so in
 SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 441
        KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
the instant case the application must be deemed to be non est.      A

     20. We regret our inability to accept that submission. The
Manager of the school had on receipt of the application from
respondent No.4 not only acknowledged the request for
appointment but also recognised that respondent No.4
possessed the requisite qualification for appointment as a Hindi    B
Teacher. The request was not, however, granted as no vacancy
in the cadre was available in the school at that time. What is
noteworthy is that the Manager did notreject the application on
the ground that the same was not in the prescribed format or
that the application was deficient in disclosing information that   C
was essential for consideration of the prayer for a
compassionate appointment. If the authority concerned before
whom the application was moved and who was supposed to
consider the request, did not find the format of the application
to be a disabling factor for a proper consideration thereof, it     D
could not be set up as a ground for rejection of the prayer, by
the beneficiary of the appointment made in derogation of the
rights of respondent No.4. At any rate, what was important was
the substance of the application and not the form. If the
application in substance conveyed the request for a                 E
compassionate appointment and provided the information
which the Manager required for considering the request, the
very fact that the information was not in a given format would
not have been a good reason to turn down the request. We need
to remind ourselves that the scheme is meant to be a beneficial     F
scheme aimed at helping those in need of assistance on
account of an untimely demise in the family. Inasmuch as the
Assistant Educational Officer and even the High Court found
respondent No.4 to be eligible for appointment and directed
the Manager to make such an appointment, they committed no          G
error to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution. The Civil Appeal is; therefore, liable to be
dismissed.

    21. In Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition
                                                                    H
    442     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A (C) Nos.31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011, the mother of
  respondent No.1 was working as a 'Teacher' who died-in-
  harness on 4th September, 1979. Respondent No.1 attained
  majority on 6th December, 1991 and passed her SSLC
  examination in the year 1993 and Teacher Training Course in
8 the year 2003. Respondent No.1 then applied for a
  compassionate appointment as a teacher on 9th September,
  2005 which request was turned down by the Manager in terms
  of his letter dated 12th June, 2006. The Manager pointed out
  that respondent No.1 was a married woman and thus a
C member of another family. The Manager also pointed out that
  the father of respondent No.1 being a Naval Officer the family
  income at the time of demise of her mother was beyond the
  limit prescribed under the scheme. He also pointed out that the
  application for appointment was belated having been made
  nearly 24 years after the demise of her mother.
D
        22. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 appears
  to have approached the District Educational Officer, who
  allowed the claim made by the said respondent in terms of his
  order dated 22nd October, 2007. A revision was then filed by
E the Manager against the said order before the Government
  which was dismissed by order dated 27th June, 2009.
  Challenging the said order, the Manager filed Writ Petition (C)
  No.21384 of 2009 before the High Court which was dismissed
  by a single Bench of the High Court by order dated 12th
F November, 2009. Writ Appeal No. 2791 of 2009 preferred
  against the said order having failed, the Manager of the
  institution has preferred the present appeal. The very same
  order has been assailed by the appellant in Special Leave
  Petition (C) Nos.6607-6608 of 2011.
G       23. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants
  that the High Court was in error in dismissing the writ petition
  filed by the Manager of the institution disregarding the fact that
  the prayer for appointment on compassionate basis had been
  made 14 years after respondent No.1 had attained majority.
H Durinq the intervening period the respondent not only got
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 443
       KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.)
married and settled down with her husband in another family         A
but did not in principle qualify for compassionate appointment
being the member of the family of her husband. It was also
contended that the orders passed by the District Educational
Officer and that passed by the Government dismissing the
revision petition were unsustainable and ought to be reversed.      B

      24. There is, in our view, considerable merit in the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The application
filed by respondent No.1 was indeed belated having been filed
14 years after the respondent attained majority. No explanation,    C
muchless a worthwhile one is forthcoming, for this kind of
inordinate and unexplained delay. Delay assumes greater
significance keeping in view the fact that respondent No.1 has
got married and has now settled with her husband comprising
a separate family. The appointment of the said respondent may
not in that view lead to any financial help for the other members   D
of the family left behind by the deceased. While it is true that
marriage by itself does not in view of the language employed
in the scheme, disqualify the person concerned from seeking
a compassionate appointment, the fact remains that delay of
more than 14 years could itself prove fatal to the prayer for a     E
compassionate appointment. The orders passed by the
Educational Officer and the Government and those by the High
Court in Writ Petition and in Writ Appeal are therefore
unsustainable and, hence liable to be set aside.
                                                                    F
     25. That leaves us with Civil Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No.4467 of 2010. In this case also the High
Court had upon consideration of the facts of the case and the
provisions of the scheme directed appointment of respondent
No.7 as a 'Full-time Menial' against the first vacancy that         G
became available in the school concerned. Father of
respondent No. 7, it appears, was a 'Full-time Menial' who
passed away on 19th July, 2000. Since respondent No.7 was
a minor at that time, his mother sent an application addressed
to the Manager of the school stating that she was agreeable         H
    444      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   to the grant of the job to her son-respondent No.7 in view of
    the death of her husband. The said letter was returned to the
    mother of respondent No. 7 with a postal endorsement
    'unclaimed'. In October 2002 respondent No.7 submitted an
    application in the prescribed format to the District Educational
B   Officer who returned it to the said respondent to be given to
    the Manager of the school for consideration. Without
    considering the said application respondent No.1 appointed
    appellant No.1 as a 'Full-time Menial' on 11th April, 2003. On
    2nd June, 2003, appellant No.3 was also appointed against the
c   vacancy of a 'Full-time Menial'. Similarly, appellant No.2 was
    appointed as 'Full-time Menial' on 1st February, 2005 when
    appellant No.1 was upgraded from the post of a 'Full-time
     Menial', to that of a 'Peon'. The prayer made by respondent No.7
    was eventually rejected by the District Educational Officer on
D   the ground that it was belated and was not in terms of the
    Government Order. Similar claim made by Mrs. Rajeswari was
    also rejected by the District Educational Officer. Both of them
    filed separate writ petitions which were disposed of by the High
    Court remanding the matter to the District Educational Officer
E   for a fresh hearing. Upon remand the District Educational
    Officer upheld the claim made by respondent No. 7 and Mrs.
    Rajeswari. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred
    revision petition before the Government which was dismissed.
    Appellants No.1 & 2 and respondent No.1 then filed writ
    petitions in which it was submitted that respondent No.7 and
F   Mrs. Rajeswari were gainfully employed. A Single Bench of the
    High Court allowed the said petitions holding that respondent
    No.7 and Mrs. Rajeswari were both disentitled to claim
    compassionate appointment. In the meantime on 15th
    December, 2007 appellant No.4 was appointed as 'Full-time
G    Menial'. Writ Appeal No.780 of 2008 filed by Mrs. Rajeswari
    against the judgment of the single Bench was dismissed by the
    High Court. By a separate order dated 11th December, 2009,
    the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.7,
    reversed the judgment of the Single Bench in so far as the said
H   respondent was concerned.
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 445
       KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     26. The material facts are not in dispute. That an              A
application was filed by the mother of respondent No.7 which
was returned with an endorsement "unclaimed" is admitted. In
para 2 of the writ petition filed by the appellants it was stated
as under:

    "The 4th respondent's father Sri. CV Kesavan was a full          B
    time menial at CA High School, Purvamba from 4.6.1962.
    On the verge of his retirement namely on 19.7.2000, Sri
    Kesavan died. Accordingly, the wife of Sri. Kesavan,
    namely Smt. KM Chandrika submitted an application on
    a plain paper on 22.7.2000 before the 1st petitioner             C
    seeking appointment under Rule 9A, Chapter XIV KER."

      27. The fact that an application was submitted to the
District Educational Officer is also beyond dispute keeping in
view the endorsement made by District Educational Officer,           D
Palaghat, dated 8th October, 2002, a copy whereof has been
placed at page. 81 of the S.L.P. As a matter of fact the need
for making of such application to the District Educational Officer
appears to have arisen on account of refusal of the Manager
to receive the application addressed to him. Such being the          E
case, the rejection of the application by the District Educational
Officer that the same was belated was wholly unjustified and
was rightly set aside by the High Court in the earlier
proceedings before it. Upon remand the District Educational
Officer correctly found respondent No.7 to be eligible for an
                                                                     F
appointment having made an application in time which was
erroneously set aside by the learned single Bench on the ground
that the application had been filed beyond the period of
limitation. The error was, however, corrected by the Division
Bench by holding that the refusal of the Manager in accepting
the application filed for appointment of respondent No. 7 was        G
only a strategy of the Manager to ward off the claim made
before him. The Division Bench also correctly held that if the
application was found to be defective for any reason the
Manager should have, instead of rejecting the same summarily
                                                                     H
     446      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A    given an opportunity to respondent No. 7 to correct the mistake
     by filing a proper application in accordance with rules. The High
     Court observed:

           "In this case, the appellant's application was defective, but
           we are not inclined to hold that the appellant did not raise
B          any claim in time. It was raised by the widow of the
           employee, who died in harness, on the fourth day of his
           death. An application or a representation from the widow,
           cannot be said to be relevant, going by the relevant GO,
           because, as per the GO, the widow gets the first preference
c          for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme and
           only with her consent, somebody else's claim can be
           considered. That is the reason, why she submitted in Ext.
           P3 that she was agreeing to give employment to the
           appellant and also made a request for the same. So,
D          definitely, if was a claim, in terms of the Government Order,
           governing appointment under the dying-in-harness
           scheme, but, it was defective, in as much it was not
           submitted in the prescribed format. As held by this Court
           in Baijukumar's case mentioned above, it is the duty of the
E.         Manager to alert the claimant, regarding the existence of
           a vacancy in his School and ask him to apply in the
           prescribed format. He has also got a duty to ask the
           claimant to cure the defects, if any, in the application
           submitted by him."
F
       28. Learned counsel argued that there was no obligation
  on the part of the Manager of the school to go in search of the
  legal heirs left behind by an employee who had died in harness.
  It was submitted, if an employee of the school died in harness
  and his legal representatives required any assistance in the
G form of compassionate appointment it is for them to approach
  the school in that regard by making an application in the manner
  prescribed. If the legal heirs did not do so, the Manager could
  reasonably assume tha(they were not in need of any
  assistance for otherwise they would ask for the same. There
H is merit in that contention. We do not see any obligation on the
SHREEJITH L. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) 447
       KERALA & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
part of the institution or the Manager to go in search of the legal   A
heirs of deceased employees or educate them about their right
to seek an appointment under the scheme. If a person is
eligible for a benefit under the scheme he can and indeed
should on his own approach the institution and seek such an
appointment. The view expressed by the High Court in Baiju            B
Kumar v. D.E.O., Trivandrum (2003) 3 KLT 240, to which a
reference has been made in the judgment, appears to be
unreasonable albeit in favour of the legal heirs of the employee.
Having said that, we have no manner of doubt that in case an
application is made by legal heirs of a deceased employee             c
claiming the benefit of the scheme for compassionate
appointment, the deficiencies and defects, if any, in the said
application ought to be pointed out to the concerned to enable
him to remove the same within a reasonable time. But if the
defects are not removed within the time granted, an adverse           D
inference could be drawn against the person in default. On the
contrary, where an application is filed, entertained and
eventually declined for a reason bther than the form in which
the same ought to have been filed, the rejection cannot be
supported before the higher authority or in the Court on the
                                                                      E
ground that application was non-est as the same was not in the
prescribed form. The application for appointment filed on behalf
of the respondent could not therefore have been rejected on
the ground that the same was not in the prescribed form.

     29. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellant      F
that out of the four appointments made by the institution the one
appointed last will have to make way for the appointment of
respondent No.7. Mr.Giri , learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.7 did not have any quarrel with that proposition,
so long as the appointment so made is related back to the date        G
when the first vacancy had become available in the school,
those appointed subsequently being adjusted against the
subsequent vacancies. It was also fairly conceded by Mr. Giri
that since respondent No.7 has not been allowed to work,
despite the order passed by the High Court, the salary for the        H
    448           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (201'2] 6 S.C.R.


A   period the appellant had worked could be paid to him including
    the petitioner who may have to be ousted to make room for the
    appointment of respondent No.7. The appointment of
    respondent No.7 shall in that view be effective from the date
    he is actually appointed by the Manager of the institution. The
s   appeal filed by the petitioners shall accordingly stand
    dismissed with the above clarification.

          30. In the result;

           (i)      Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
c                   (C) No. 7556 of 2008 is dismissed.

           (ii)    Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
                   (C) No.4954 of 2009 is however allowed, the
                   judgment and order passed by the High Court in
D                  W.P. (C) No.16815 of2008 and in Writ Appeal No.
                   2211 of 2008 set aside.

           (iii)    Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
                    (C) No.33421 of 2009 is dismissed.

E          (iv)     Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition
                    (C) Nos.31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011 are
                    allowed, the judgment and orders passed by the
                    High Court in W.P. No.21384 of 2009 and in Writ
                    Appeal No.2791 of 2009 are ~et aside. T~e order
F                   passed by· the Government in revision and that
                    passed by the District Educational Officer dated
                    22nd October, 2007 shall stand quashed. Prayer for
                    compassionate appointment made by respondent
                    No.1 is consequently rejected.
G          (v)      Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
                    (C) No.4467 of 2010 is dismissed.

        31. The parties are left to bear their own costs in all the
    appeals.
H R.P.                                         Appeals disposed of.