Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Sabina and Satyen Vaidya JJ. dismissed the petition on grounds of non-interference.

 The facts of the case are such that the father of the petitioner was working as a T-Mate with the respondent department and had died while in service, on 03-03-2007. Petitioner by approaching the respondents had sought appointment on compassionate basis. However, the case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected on the ground that since the mother of the petitioner was already serving in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department; therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Clause-5 (c) of the Policy dated 18-1-1990; case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected as the mother of the petitioner was already in a Government job.

The Court relied on judgment State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 wherein it was observed that

“… Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment.

“..it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State.”

Clause 5 (c) of the said policy reads as under:-

“In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in Govt. Service or in employment of Autonomous Bodies/Boards/Corporation etc., of the State/Central Govt. employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. In cases, however, where the widow of the deceased Govt. Servant represents or claims that her employed sons/ daughters are not supporting her, the request of employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow. Even for allowing compassionate appointment to the widow in such cases the opinion of the department of Personnel and Finance Department should specifically be sought and the matter finally decided by the Council of Ministers.”

 Thus, the Court observed that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis in view of Clause-5(c) of the relevant policy as his mother was already in a government job. The Court further observed that the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate basis.

The Court held “no ground for interference, while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.”

[Moti Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 236, decided on 03-01-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances:

For petitioner: Naveen K Bharadwaj

For respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar God

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The  Division Bench of Satish Kumar Sharma and Indrajit Mahanty, JJ., dismissed the petition remitting the matter to State Government for consideration.

The present writ application has come to be filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the State of Rajasthan to include persons with locomotive disabilities as well as who are hard of hearing (hearing impairment) under the category of reservation for the purpose of induction as employee under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 i.e. PWD Act, 2016.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, DB SAW No. 1484/2012, the State of Rajasthan has carried out necessary amendments in the notification and included blind people in the area of reservation for recruitment of Primary School Teachers. It was further submitted that the recent notification issued by the Union of India dated 04.01.2021 notified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in terms of which identified posts are to be reserved for persons with disabilities after review of such list. It was also submitted that that in so far as serial No. 1520 is concerned, Primary School Teachers, other persons with hard of hearing (HH) have been included for the purpose of consideration for appointment

Counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of reservation or consideration of posting under the Act of 2016 since persons with hearing impairment cannot be inducted as Primary School Teachers.

The Court observed that the State of Rajasthan shall consider amending its earlier notification and to bring it in line with the suggestions made by the Union of India to the extent that the State Government shall issue necessary modified notification under the Act of 2016 and shall reconsider the applicability of the notification issued by the Union of India in all the various departments of the State of Rajasthan within a period of three months from the date of the order.

The Court thus held “the petitioner is not entitled to any relief before the decision of the State Government to be taken in light of the said notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by Union of India.”

In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Kaushalya v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 176, decided on 16-02-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Karol, ACJ and Sandeep Sharma, J. directed the authorities to take necessary action and resolve the grievances of the petitioner.

The PIL by way of a letter has been addressed to the Court wherein it was alleged that the house provided to petitioner was in danger due to unscientific digging which was being carried out by people living adjacent to his house.

Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to look into the matter and redress the same by taking strict action against the violators. Subsequent to the directions given by the Court the spot was inspected and it was found that no fresh digging took place in the respective area and the apprehension expressed in the petition was taken care of by the construction of retaining wall by Public Works Department together with the issue regarding supply of water along the replacing the problematic tap.

Accordingly, as the grievances expressed in the letter have been duly resolved, thus the petition was disposed of. [State of H.P. (Unscientific Digging Matter), In re, CWPIL No. 154 of 2017, decided on 14-12-2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The petitioner, who challenged the eligibility of Respondent 5 to participate in the Tender process, was left high and dry when the Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta, CJ and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. held that the Court in exercise of judicial review, will not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision taken by a committee of experts.

The eligibility of the said respondent to participate in the Tender for upgradation of Raipur-Sitapur-Paani Road was challenged by the petitioner. The alleged ground for the challenge was that Respondent 5 did not meet one of the conditions to participate in the process, viz. execution of the contractual works of the specified quantity during the last 5 years. The Chief Engineer, PWD (Rewa Division) sought information from Respondent 5 regarding the same but even before his response, the decision declaring him eligible for participating in the tender process was taken. The petitioner submitted that the decision of the respondents was arbitrary, irrational and unsustainable.

The High Court heard the parties and found no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondents. The Court held that “The question: as to whether the bidder is technically qualified or not, is a decision taken by the experts. Since the experts have taken a decision that Respondent 5 is eligible to carry out the work advertised, therefore, this Court in exercise of judicial review will not sit as a court of appeal over the decision taken by the committee of experts.” The Court found no merit in the petition which was accordingly dismissed. [TBCL Shiv Shakti Construction Co. (Joint Venture) v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 351, dated 14-5-2018]