Allahabad High Court Emphasises On Proper Institutional Measures Including Detailed Scrutiny Before Making Compassionate Ground Appointments

The Allahabad High Court has emphasised on proper institutional measures including detailed scrutiny of applications and due diligence before making compassionate ground appointments.

A Writ Petition was filed by a man who was aggrieved by the Order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, dismissing him from service.

A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed, “In light of such enquiry proper institutional measures including detailed scrutiny of applications and due diligence before making compassionate ground appointments are liable to be put in place to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future.”

The Bench reiterated that immediate financial destitution of the dependent caused by the death of an employee is a mandatory prerequisite for appointment on compassionate ground.

Advocate Chandan Sharma appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocate Gaurav Bishan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner had assailed the Order passed by the Appellate Authority/Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj which rejected his Appeal against the Order of dismissal. He was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1990 under the Dying in Harness Rules. A chargesheet was drawn up against him in 2020 which caused the initiation of departmental proceedings against him. As per the first charge, he was working as a DSL Cleaner in the Indian Railways, and later he was removed from service. He obtained an appointment as a teacher under the Dying in Harness Rules in the Basic Shiksha department by allegedly concealing the said facts of his service and removal from Railways.

According to the second charge, he was appointed on compassionate grounds in 1990 after the period of limitation had expired. The third charge alleged acts of financial irregularities and disobedience of the orders of superior authority. A report was prepared in 2021 by the Block Education Officer regarding the alleged financial irregularities committed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause notice (SCN) was issued to him by the disciplinary authority. He was dismissed from service and his dismissal order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “There is no nexus between the death of the petitioner’s father in harness in 1984, and the financial penury faced by him in 1989. The financial hardship which was claimed by the petitioner for the first time in 1989 was entirely of his own making. … The violation of the sole and imperative precondition for compassionate appointment is a non curable illegality which goes to the root, and renders the petitioner’s appointment void ab initio.”

The Court said that the Petitioner’s appointment was made in complete violation of the law governing compassionate appointment and entirely subverted the beneficent purpose of the same.

“The appointment of petitioner was an abuse of the power of compassionate appointments and was vitiated since inception. The appointment of the petitioner was possible because of lax standards of scrutiny while making such appointments, if not an outright act of collusion of the competent authorities in the fraud. The petitioner cannot get any benefit of poor oversight of officials or their connivance in his illegal appointment”, it added.

The Court remarked that the law has looked askance against creation of such contrivances to make back door entries in public employment for the benefit of serving employees and creating a monopoly in their favour by treating government jobs as a largesse.

“Constitutional Courts have noticed the abuse of compassionate appointments and the law has set its face against such fraud for appointment on compassionate grounds. Authorities in point will fortify the narrative”, it observed.

Furthermore, the Court noted that a regular departmental enquiry proceeding to bring home the charge wherein the relevant departmental witnesses were to be produced and cross examined, was the requirement of law.

“Various documents which established the said charges too had to be proved before the enquiry officer. The said procedure has not been followed and the second charge has not been proved as per the procedure prescribed by law. The findings of the authorities below in this regard cannot be sustained”, it added.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court held that the findings of the authorities in the impugned Orders in regard to the second charges are perverse and are not liable to be sustained.

“Ordinarily the matter would have been remanded to the authorities including into the charge as per the procedure provided in the relevant service rules. The two sets of charges relating to invalidity of appointment and financial regularities respectively are severable. Since the appointment of the petitioner has been found to be illegal beyond cure and vitiated beyond recall, no purpose will be served by remanding the matter. It is time for litigative repose”, it concluded.

The Court, therefore, directed that the Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow shall cause an enquiry to be conducted into the following issues as per law:

(a) Role of officials responsible for the Petitioner’s appointment.

(b) The reasons why the matter went undetected for decades.

(c) The responsible officials who turned a blind eye or delayed the proceedings even after the issue came in full knowledge of the authorities. Appropriate action as per law shall be taken thereafter.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Vikrant Sengar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:105446)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Chandan Sharma, Jadu Nandan Yadav, and Pranvesh.

Respondents: Advocates Gaurav Bishan and Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava.

Click here to read/download the Judgment