Court rules that compassionate appointment does not guarantee rights to higher positions, upholding principles of estoppel and acquiescence.
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has set aside a previous decision that allowed an individual to claim a higher post under compassionate appointment rules. The Division Bench, comprising Mrs. Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem JJ., ruled that compassionate appointments cannot be used to claim higher posts as a matter of right, reaffirming the discretionary power of the government under the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 (SRO 43).
The case involved Javaid Ahmad Ganai, who was initially appointed as a storekeeper on compassionate grounds following the death of a family member. However, his appointment to the post was contested on the grounds that it was a promotional post, not directly accessible through compassionate appointments. The single judge had previously deemed him appointed as a storekeeper but without monetary benefits, a decision now overturned by the High Court.
The court highlighted that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule and should be strictly governed by the respective rules and eligibility criteria. The ruling emphasized that once an individual accepts an appointment on compassionate grounds, they cannot seek a higher post thereafter, invoking the principles of estoppel and acquiescence.
The court also referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in "State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh" and "Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh," to support its decision. It underlined that discretionary powers of the government are crucial and should not be undermined by claims of right to higher posts through compassionate appointments.
Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, setting aside the judgment dated July 10, 2015, which had favored Ganai. The ruling reasserts the need for adherence to the recruitment rules and the discretionary nature of compassionate appointments, particularly concerning higher posts.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed to a higher post as a matter of right. Once a person accepts appointment on a compassionate basis, they are estopped from seeking appointment to any other equivalent or higher post. The principle of estoppel and acquiescence applies.
Statutory provision(s):
Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 (SRO 43), Rule 3
