1994 (9) TMI 318 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules on delay in special appeal filing, clarifies appointment rights.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Versus UMRAO SINGH

The Supreme Court addressed the delay in filing a special appeal against the High Court's judgment, deciding the case on its merits due to administrative ... Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal merely on the ground of delay? Whether the appellant has a good case? Held that:- The delay had been caused on account of administrative exigencies. The failure to condone the delay has resulted in injustice as rightly urged on behalf of the appellant State because the judgment of the learned Single Judge constitutes a bad precedent. Therefore, we condone the delay. Proceed to decide the matter on the merits instead of remitting it to the Division Bench. High Court was not legally justified in directing a further consideration of the candidature of the respondent for the post of Sub-Inspector. As the respondent’s father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of 'endless compassion'. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case. Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Delay in filing the special appeal against the High Court's judgment.2. Consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds for the respondent.3. Interpretation of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants Rules, 1975.4. Applicability of the judgment in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali to the present case.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case was the delay in filing the special appeal against the High Court's judgment. The appellant argued that the delay was due to administrative exigencies and should have been condoned. The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay but proceeded to decide the matter on its merits instead of remitting it to the Division Bench, considering the judgment of the Single Judge as a bad precedent.2. The next issue involved the consideration of the respondent's appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent's father, a Sub-Inspector, passed away while in service, following which the respondent applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. He was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) but later sought appointment as a Sub-Inspector, which was denied. The court held that the right to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds was consummated when he accepted the appointment as an LDC, and no further consideration on compassionate grounds was warranted.3. The interpretation of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants Rules, 1975 was crucial in this case. The court emphasized that the proviso did not apply to the facts of the case, as the respondent had already accepted the appointment as an LDC on compassionate grounds, precluding any further consideration for a higher post on compassionate grounds.4. Lastly, the applicability of the judgment in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali to the present case was discussed. The court noted that while the direction in the cited case was a positive one for appointment, in the present case, the direction was only to consider the respondent's case. Despite this difference, the court concluded that the High Court was not legally justified in directing further consideration for the post of Sub-Inspector, ultimately allowing the civil appeal and dismissing the respondent's writ petition.