Surya Kant Kadam Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7213-7214 of 1997
Petitioner: Surya Kant Kadam
Respondent: State of Karnataka & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7213-7214 of 1997
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 16, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAW
Constitution
Article 14 – Discrimination – ‘S’ appointed on compassionate grounds as clerk – Possessed necessary qualification for appoint-ment as Sub-Inspector of Excise – Two others also appointed as such and later, promoted as Sub-Inspectors – ‘S’ not considered – Tribunal quashing appointment of others – On appeal, allowed to move for review – In review, appointments held valid – Prayer of ‘S’ not considered – ‘S’ not even coming in appeal against rejec-tion of his prayer for consideration for appointment vide earlier order – Appeal filed against review. Held that although rejection of considering his appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise had become final, he was discrimi-nated with the other two. Orders set aside. State Government. to consider appointment, which if made, to be prospective.
Held:
It is true that the appointment on compassionate ground in the State of Karnataka is not governed by any statutory rules but by set of administrative instructions and as such is not enforceable in a court of law. But the grounds on which the appellant makes out the case for considerations of his case, is the violation of Article 14 and discriminatory treatment meted out to the appell-ant. It is undisputed that the date on which the appellant was given a compassionate appointment as the second division assis-tant/clerk he had the necessary qualification for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is also undisputed that the re-spondents 3 and 4 were given appointment initially as second division assistant/clerk but later than the appellant. When the State therefore thought it fit to change the post of respondents 3 and 4 and appointed them to the post of Sub-Inspector of Ex-cise, unless there exists any justifiable reason there is no reason as to why the appellant should be treated with a hostile discrimination. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The appellant on the death of his father was given a compassionate appointment as second division assistant/clerk, even though he had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and did possess the necessary qualifications for the said post. Respondents 3 and 4 whose father also died while in service, were appointed similarly as Second Division Assistant/Clerk on 9.1.1978 and 19.12.1979 re-spectively. Those respondents 3 and 4 while continuing as second division assistant/clerk were later on promoted/appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise on 3.10.1987 and 27.4.1988. The appellant who had been earlier appointed on compassionate ground as second division assistant/clerk and was entitled to be considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise was not considered when the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Sub-Inspector of Ex-cise. The appellant therefore moved the State Administrative Tribunal claiming that his case for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise be considered or in the alternative the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 be quashed. The Tribunal considered the application of the appellant and did not grant the relief to his case for being considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise. The Tribunal, however, quashed the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Against the aforesaid order, the State of Karnataka had approached this Court in special leave petition but that special leave petition stood dismissed. The respondents 3 and 4, however, approached this Court against the order quashing their appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise. This Court, however, made some observations in that special leave petition and permitted the respondents 3 and 4 to file an appli-cation for review before the State Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents 3 and 4 having approached the Tribunal for review of the earlier order, the Tribunal by the impugned order reviewed its earlier order and did not interfere with the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that the appellant has moved the Tribunal against the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 belatedly and therefore the same could not be interfered with. It is this review order of the Tribunal which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even though the respondents 3 and 4’s appointment could not be assailed on the ground of belated approach by the appellant but the prayer with regard to consideration of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise could not have been rejected by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for the State Government, on the other hand, contended that against the earlier order when the Tribunal denied the relief of considering the case of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant having not moved this Court, the same has become final and therefore should not be interfered with by this Court. There is some force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the State. But having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and admittedly the respondents 3 and 4, who were similarly situated like the appellant and who were given compassionate appointment later than the appellant, having been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant has a justi-fiable grievance. It is true that the appointment on compassion-ate ground in the State of Karnataka is not governed by any statutory rules but by set of administrative instruction and as such is not enforceable in a court of law. But the grounds on which the appellant makes out the case for consideration of his case, is the violation of Article 14 and discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellant. It is undisputed that the date on which the appellant was given a compassionate appointment as the second division assistant/clerk he had the necessary qualifica-tion for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is also undisputed that the respondents 3 and 4 were given appointment initially as second division assistant/clerk but later than the appellant. When the State therefore thought it fit to change the post of respondents 3 and 4 and appointed them to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, unless there exists any justifiable reason there is no reason as to why the appellant should be treated with a hostile discrimination. In the aforesaid circum-stance, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the appellant for being considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and we direct that the State Government may consider the case of appointment of the appellant as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Be it stated, in the event he is appointed it would be prospective and he will not be entitled to any retro-spective benefit. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The appellant on the death of his father was given a compassionate appointment as second division assistant/clerk, even though he had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and did possess the necessary qualifications for the said post. Respondents 3 and 4 whose father also died while in service, were appointed similarly as Second Division Assistant/Clerk on 9.1.1978 and 19.12.1979 re-spectively. Those respondents 3 and 4 while continuing as second division assistant/clerk were later on promoted/appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise on 3.10.1987 and 27.4.1988. The appellant who had been earlier appointed on compassionate ground as second division assistant/clerk and was entitled to be considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise was not considered when the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Sub-Inspector of Ex-cise. The appellant therefore moved the State Administrative Tribunal claiming that his case for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise be considered or in the alternative the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 be quashed. The Tribunal considered the application of the appellant and did not grant the relief to his case for being considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise. The Tribunal, however, quashed the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Against the aforesaid order, the State of Karnataka had approached this Court in special leave petition but that special leave petition stood dismissed. The respondents 3 and 4, however, approached this Court against the order quashing their appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise. This Court, however, made some observations in that special leave petition and permitted the respondents 3 and 4 to file an appli-cation for review before the State Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents 3 and 4 having approached the Tribunal for review of the earlier order, the Tribunal by the impugned order reviewed its earlier order and did not interfere with the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that the appellant has moved the Tribunal against the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 belatedly and therefore the same could not be interfered with. It is this review order of the Tribunal which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even though the respondents 3 and 4’s appointment could not be assailed on the ground of belated approach by the appellant but the prayer with regard to consideration of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise could not have been rejected by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for the State Government, on the other hand, contended that against the earlier order when the Tribunal denied the relief of considering the case of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant having not moved this Court, the same has become final and therefore should not be interfered with by this Court. There is some force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the State. But having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and admittedly the respondents 3 and 4, who were similarly situated like the appellant and who were given compassionate appointment later than the appellant, having been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant has a justi-fiable grievance. It is true that the appointment on compassion-ate ground in the State of Karnataka is not governed by any statutory rules but by set of administrative instruction and as such is not enforceable in a court of law. But the grounds on which the appellant makes out the case for consideration of his case, is the violation of Article 14 and discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellant. It is undisputed that the date on which the appellant was given a compassionate appointment as the second division assistant/clerk he had the necessary qualifica-tion for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is also undisputed that the respondents 3 and 4 were given appointment initially as second division assistant/clerk but later than the appellant. When the State therefore thought it fit to change the post of respondents 3 and 4 and appointed them to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, unless there exists any justifiable reason there is no reason as to why the appellant should be treated with a hostile discrimination. In the aforesaid circum-stance, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the appellant for being considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and we direct that the State Government may consider the case of appointment of the appellant as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Be it stated, in the event he is appointed it would be prospective and he will not be entitled to any retro-spective benefit. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
