Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Upholds Physical Test Requirement in State of UP vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (25 July 2013)

Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2013
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Dipak Misra, J., Vikramajit Sen, J.

Can a person seeking compassionate appointment be exempted from a physical test? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Police Department. The court clarified that while compassionate appointments are meant to help families in distress, candidates must still meet minimum standards of efficiency, including physical fitness, for certain posts. This judgment emphasizes that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, a Head Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, died while in service on 22 April 2002. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 20 December 2002. The police department decided to offer him a position as a Constable. An appointment letter was issued on 9 May 2003, requiring him to join on 11 May 2003. Instead of joining, he filed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Sub-Inspector, claiming eligibility for the post. He later joined as a Constable on 28 June 2003, and withdrew his writ petition on 16 March 2004.

Subsequently, the respondent participated in a physical test for Sub-Inspector from 27 June 2005 to 29 June 2005, but did not qualify. He then filed another writ petition in 2006, seeking compassionate appointment as Sub-Inspector without having to undergo a physical test.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge dismissed the second writ petition on 23 November 2006, stating that a second petition was not maintainable after the first was withdrawn. The court also held that the prayer for appointment as Sub-Inspector without a physical test was misconceived.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversed the Single Judge’s decision in Special Appeal No. 1602 of 2006. The Division Bench stated that the dismissal of the first writ petition was not a bar to the second. It also directed the department to conduct another physical test for the respondent within two months. The review application was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (the ‘1974 Rules’). Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules states that a family member of a deceased government servant can be given a suitable government job, except for posts under the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. This is subject to the person meeting the educational qualifications, being qualified for government service, and applying within five years of the government servant’s death.

Rule 8(2) of the 1974 Rules allows the appointing authority to interview the candidate to ensure they meet minimum standards of work and efficiency.
“The procedural requirement for selection, such as written test or interview by a selection committee or any other authority, shall be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the appointing authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards of work and efficiency expected to the post.”

The Inspector General of Police issued an order/letter-circular which stated that candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander must be physically competent. This order specified physical standards, including a cricket ball throw, long jump, chin-ups, running, and other exercises.

Arguments

The appellant, State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the High Court could not have directed another physical test after the respondent failed the first one. They relied on Rule 8(2) of the 1974 Rules, which requires a minimum standard of efficiency. The State also cited I.G. Karmik and Ors. v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, emphasizing that there is no vested right to compassionate appointment. The State also argued that the respondent cannot claim a specific post based on educational qualifications.

The respondent argued that the rules did not mandate a physical test for compassionate appointments. He contended that he should be given the benefit of appointment by relaxing the rules. He also argued that the physical test was based on an order by the Inspector General of Police, which cannot override the 1974 Rules. He further argued that others were given a second chance for the physical test, and he should receive the same benefit.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent lies in the claim that the physical test was not mandated by the rules but by an order of the Inspector General of Police.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in directing the department to hold another physical test for the respondent for compassionate appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered several cases to clarify the concept of compassionate appointment.

The Court also considered the Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, specifically Rule 5 and Rule 8(2).

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the authorities in the following manner:

The Court relied on the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [CITATION], SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [CITATION], General Manager, State Bank of India and Others v. Anju Jain [CITATION], Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami and Another [CITATION] and State Bank of India and Another v. Raj kumar [CITATION], to reiterate that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession to help families in distress.

The Court also relied on I.G. Karmik and Ors. v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi [CITATION], to emphasize that compassionate appointment is for meeting immediate hardship and should not be endless compassion.

The Supreme Court held that the order/letter-circular issued by the Inspector General was in consonance with Rule 8(2) of the 1974 Rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession. The Court emphasized the need to maintain minimum standards of efficiency for public posts, even in cases of compassionate appointment. The Court also upheld the validity of the Inspector General of Police’s order/letter-circular, which mandated physical fitness for certain posts.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that the respondent should be given another chance because of the passage of time, but rejected it. The Court held that once the respondent failed the physical test, he could not claim a right to another test.

The Court stated, “Once he did not qualify in the physical test, the High Court could not have asked the department to give him an opportunity to hold another test to extend him the benefit of compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector solely on the ground that there has been efflux of time.”

The Court also held, “The respondent after being disqualified in the physical test could not have claimed as a matter of right and demand for an appointment in respect of a particular post and the High Court could not have granted further opportunity after the crisis was over.”

The Court further clarified that, “Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out be this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the reason of the death of the bread earned. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.”

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order. The court clarified that the respondent could compete for promotion in the normal course if eligible.

The Court also directed that sealed covers containing results of second physical tests conducted in other cases should not be opened.

The Court acknowledged the apprehension of the respondent that they might be deprived of certain relaxations for promotion. The State of Uttar Pradesh assured that they would be given relaxation if they were entitled to the same, and their failure in the first physical test would not be held against them.

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession to help families in distress.
• Candidates for compassionate appointment must meet minimum standards of efficiency, including physical fitness, for certain posts.
• The appointing authority has the discretion to ensure that candidates meet the minimum standards of work and efficiency.
• A failed physical test disqualifies a candidate from claiming a right to another test for compassionate appointment.
• The State should not hold a candidate’s failure in a previous physical test against them for promotion if they are otherwise eligible.

This judgment clarifies that while compassionate appointments are necessary, they should not compromise the efficiency and standards required for public posts. It sets a precedent that physical fitness tests are valid requirements for certain posts, even in cases of compassionate appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sealed covers containing the results of second physical tests conducted in other cases should not be opened. The Court also clarified that the candidates in those cases are entitled to compete for promotion in accordance with the rules.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment is not a right, and candidates must meet the minimum standards of efficiency, including physical fitness, for certain posts. This case reinforces the existing legal position that compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rule of equality and must be strictly complied with. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies the application of the law in the context of physical fitness tests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi clarifies that while compassionate appointments are essential to support families of deceased government employees, they cannot override the need to maintain minimum standards of efficiency. The Court upheld the requirement for physical tests for certain posts, reinforcing that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and that candidates must meet the necessary qualifications.