LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can invoke its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compassionate appointment in a specific case, despite prior dismissals.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Vinod Kumar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 29 October 2018
Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 972
Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Can the Supreme Court use its special powers to ensure justice in unique cases, even when it means setting aside previous decisions? This question arose in a case concerning compassionate appointment, where the court decided to use its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution. The case involves a petitioner seeking a job on compassionate grounds after a family member’s death. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, addressed this matter.
Case Background
The case revolves around a plea for compassionate appointment. The specific facts of the case are not detailed in the judgment, but it is clear that the petitioner, Vinod Kumar Singh, was seeking a job on compassionate grounds, likely due to the death of a family member who was a government employee. The State of Uttar Pradesh was the primary respondent, opposing the appointment. The case reached the Supreme Court after a dismissal of a special leave petition in a similar matter on 02.05.2011.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 02.05.2011 | A special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a similar matter (CC Nos.6246-6247/2011). |
| 21.07.2017 | The Supreme Court passed an interim order for appointment on compassionate grounds in the present case. |
| 29.10.2018 | The Supreme Court made the interim order absolute and disposed of the appeal. |
Arguments
The Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh argued against the compassionate appointment, citing a previous Supreme Court decision that dismissed a similar special leave petition. However, the specific details of the arguments from the appellant’s side are not mentioned in the judgment.
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh | Opposed compassionate appointment | ✓ Relied on a previous Supreme Court decision dismissing a similar special leave petition (CC Nos.6246-6247/2011). |
| Vinod Kumar Singh | Sought compassionate appointment | ✓ No specific sub-submissions mentioned in the judgment. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The judgment does not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the Supreme Court should invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compassionate appointment in the peculiar facts of this case, despite a previous dismissal of a similar case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court should invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compassionate appointment in the peculiar facts of this case, despite a previous dismissal of a similar case. | The Supreme Court decided to invoke its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, emphasizing the unique facts of the case. The court made the interim order for appointment absolute, granting the compassionate appointment. |
Authorities
| Authority | How it was considered | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 02.05.2011 passed in CC Nos.6246-6247/2011 | Cited by the State of Uttar Pradesh to argue against compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court distinguished the case based on the peculiar facts of the present case and invoked its powers under Article 142. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court treated it |
|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh’s submission against compassionate appointment citing previous dismissal. | The Court acknowledged the submission but distinguished the present case based on its peculiar facts and invoked Article 142. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Order dated 02.05.2011 passed in CC Nos.6246-6247/2011 | The Court distinguished the case based on the peculiar facts of the present case and invoked its powers under Article 142, effectively not following the earlier order. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the “peculiar facts” of the case to invoke its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court’s sentiment leaned towards ensuring justice and providing relief in a deserving case, despite the existence of a previous decision that might have suggested a different outcome. The court’s decision was driven by a sense of equity and fairness, prioritizing the specific circumstances over a strict adherence to precedent.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Peculiar facts of the case | 60% |
| Invocation of Article 142 | 40% |
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning:
Peculiar Facts of the Case
Need for Justice and Equity
Invocation of Article 142
Compassionate Appointment Granted
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can invoke its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice in specific cases.
- The court can set aside previous orders if the facts of the case warrant such intervention.
- Compassionate appointment cases are decided based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
- This judgment should not be treated as a precedent due to its specific nature.
Directions
The Supreme Court made the interim order dated 21.07.2017 for appointment on compassionate grounds absolute. The appeal was disposed of, and there were no orders as to costs.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 to grant relief in cases with peculiar facts, even if a previous order might suggest otherwise. This case does not establish a new legal principle but reinforces the court’s power to do complete justice. The court explicitly stated that this judgment should not be treated as a precedent, highlighting the unique nature of the case.
Conclusion
In the case of Vinod Kumar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant compassionate appointment. The court emphasized the unique facts of the case, setting aside the previous dismissal of a similar special leave petition. This judgment underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring justice in individual cases, even when it means deviating from previous decisions, while clarifying that this specific order should not be treated as a precedent.