Ravi Kumar Jeph S/O Late Sh. Shrawan Lal Meena vs. Joint Director

Held

The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's Original Application. The Court found that the committee's assessment of the petitioner's family's financial condition was balanced and objective. The family owned a residential house in the village, 33 acres of agricultural land generating an annual income of Rs. 0.75 lacs, and a HIG house in Jaipur. The family was receiving approximately Rs. 85,000/- as monthly pension, which the committee deemed sufficient for livelihood and fulfillment of social obligations, including the education and marriage of the son and daughter, and the social responsibilities of five married daughters. The Court noted that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of equal opportunity and is a concession, not a right, as laid down by the Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. and The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any discrimination or that he strictly fell within the parameters of the policy on the date of his father's death. The judgment in Govind Prakash Verma was deemed inapplicable due to the specific facts regarding vacancy availability and other deserving candidates. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Jeph, sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a Principal Commissioner (Central Excise), on 27.08.2015. His initial application was rejected by a departmental committee, and this decision was accepted by the competent authority. After seeking information under the RTI Act, the petitioner reapplied for compassionate appointment, which was again rejected on 08.01.2019. He then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench, which dismissed his Original Application, finding sufficient reasons for denying the appointment. The CAT relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Dinesh Singh Rathore v. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, challenging the CAT's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's Original Application challenging the rejection of his compassionate appointment request, considering the reasons provided by the respondents? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of compassionate appointment policies and the assessment of financial hardship). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in rejecting his application. He argued that he was eligible for compassionate appointment and that the rejection based on family pension received by his mother, as indicated in the RTI response, was not a valid ground. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that their rejection was justified. They stated that a committee conducted a balanced and objective assessment of 19 applicants' financial conditions and liabilities. The committee recommended 3 most deserving candidates and, due to non-availability of vacancies, recommended 8 other cases for consideration by the next committee, while rejecting the cases of 8 applicants, including the petitioner. The competent authority approved these recommendations. They emphasized that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and the petitioner's case did not meet the criteria.