Holding

The High Court was not justified in directing appointment to Class III posts; no vested right exists, and the Government's compassionate appointment policy is not illegal.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Bihar Government's policy of appointing dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds to Class IV posts, while reserving Class III posts for promotion. Several candidates appointed to Class IV filed writ petitions seeking promotion or fresh appointment to Class III. The Patna High Court directed the government to consider them for Class III posts, either by promotion or fresh appointment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no vested right to a specific appointment, that the government's policy was not illegal, and that the High Court's directions would disrupt service discipline by effectively converting Class IV posts into Class III posts. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders, allowed the appeals, and directed that appointments be made in accordance with the existing vacancy and seniority rules for Class IV posts.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners have a vested right to be appointed to Class III posts on compassionate grounds.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the government to appoint the petitioners to Class III posts either by promotion or fresh appointment.
Whether the Bihar Government's policy of appointing all candidates on compassionate grounds to Class IV posts, reserving Class III posts for promotion, is illegal or unjustified.

Subjects

service lawcompassionate appointmentclass IVclass IIIpromotionvested rightservice disciplinehigh court directionSupreme Court

Judgment

.li
it"
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
SAMSUZ ZOHA ETC.,• :

MARCH 22, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] B

service Law :
.~ .'
Appointment on compassionate grounds-Co-Operative Department of
Govemment of Bihar-Vacancies of Class IV. and ,Class III posts---State C
Govemment taking a policy decision' to make all appointments on compas-
sionate grounds to class IV posts irrespective of qualiftcations of individuals
and reserving class III posts to be filled by "promotion-Some of the can-
didates appointed to class. IV posts filing 'a writ petiiion in High Court for
appointment to class III posts-High Court directing the· Government to
appoint the petitioners to. class III posts either by promotion or by fresh D
appointmenl-Held, High Court not justified in·giving directiims---Ihere is no
right vested in •the candidate.i for particular appointment 011 compassionate·
grounds---Ihe principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be
'-I unjustified or illegal. ·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7086-87 E
of 1996 Etc:

. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.95 .and 26.10.94 of the
Patna
~
High Court'· 'in M.J.C. No. 727/95
' . . . . .and
. C.W.J.C.
. No. 8550 of 1993.
F
Altaf Ahmed, Additionai"Solicitor .General: Anil Kumar Jha, M.M.
Kashyap, B.B. Singh, S.B. Upadhyay and Gopal Singh, for the appearing
parties.

· The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 2383-2384 of 1996.,. "

We have heard learned. counsel on both sides.

· · A rather unfortunate situation has been created by the .order~ of the
High Court in interfe~ing with the appointmenis made on compassionate H
• 807 . .
J
I

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A ground by the Government. These appeals by special leave arise from
different orders of the High Court of Patna. The first batch taken up is of
appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2383-84/96. In this case the Govern- •
ment had resolved to appoint on compassionate ground the dependent son
or daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness. A long list of
persons awaiting such appointments was prepared by the Co-operative
B
Department. The Department recommended candidates for certain posts
depending upon the quatifications etc. A committee was constituted by the
Government consisting of the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Addi-
tional Secretary and the Registrar of the Co-operative Department. The
Committe.e had first identified the vacant posts and then decided to make
C recommendations of the candidates. At that time since more than 40 posts
of Class JV was available, the committee had recommended appointment
of all the candidates as Class JV employees. It is also seen that 12 posts in
Class III were available but they kept reserved for promotion from existing
Class IV employees. The candidates who were· appointed as Class JV
D approached the High Court by way of writ petition the first of which is
CWJC No: 739/1991 titled Ghidharya Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
The High Court by order dated August 26, 1991 directed the respondents
to consider afresh their appointments to any one of the Class III posts
either by promotion or fresh appointment whichever was possible in ac-
cordance with the rules and regulations. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents
E filed a Review Petition. After considerable delay, the Review Petition came
to be dismissed and appointments were directed to be made by April 30,
1992. Consequently, the appellant did not come in appeal to this Court
against that order which thus has become final. Following the above order
directions have been given in respect of different persons who had filed
separate writ petitions. Jn some of the cases the appeals have now came to
F
be filed before us.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court
is right in giving directions to appoint them afresh or give them promo-
tion? It is not in dispute that there is no right vested in the candidates for
G particular appointment on compassionate grounds. The State had taken
policy decision to appoint all the candidates irrespective of the qualifica-
tions as Class IV post and, therefore, the committee consisting of the
Secretary, Addi. Secretary and the Registrar met and decided the principle
that all the ~vailable posts in Class JV should be made available to the
H candidates in the awaiting list for appointment on compassionate grounds.
STATE v. SAMSUZ ZOHA 809
r- •
12 posts available in Class III were reserved appointment by promotion A fo;
to the Class IV candidates who were en\itle.d thereto as per the rutes. The
principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be unjustified or
illegal. Undoubtedly, some candidates had gone to the Court and obtained
orders and in compliance thereof, at pain of contempt petition, the
Government, instead of appointing them to Cfass IV pcists since by then B
the Class III posts were not available, upgraded Class IV post as Class III
post and confirmed them as Class III employees. That order which was
wrongly made by the High .Court cannot be a base to issue directions. In
other words, if the directions are complied with all the Class IV posts
would be converted into Class' III posts which is agafost the discipline of
the service. The High' Court, therefore, was rtot justified in i~suirtg direc- ' C
tions in all the. cases for appointment to Cla~s III. post. " .
• .. • ' ~ • • <. -- ' • '

Appeals are accordingly 1allowed.but in the circumstances without
costs. It· is needless to mention. that their cases would be considered and
appointment made against the available vacancy in the order of seniority
to t~e Class IY.·.· :post. ._ ., D
r J . ~ . J) ..,.

SLP (C) NO. 18334 of 1995

'.J Special Leave Petition is· dismissed.
. ,.
R.P: Appeal; ai1o~ed.
't ' .

,_,_,,,· ..• ·
"'
rf /.

· ' ' ''"!. I';,.

'·
.. ·1' ,}.
, ~

,,
'
I ' ~(': • •
. ·-,_,-~P
I;_· •
.'

. ·J