Supreme Court clarifies rules for compassionate appointment: N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka (4 March 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 March 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 241

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. (authored the judgment)

When a government employee dies, can their dependents claim a job based on the rules at the time of death, or are they subject to the rules in place when their application is actually considered? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a set of appeals concerning compassionate appointments in Karnataka. The core issue was whether the amended rules of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, should apply to the appellants, whose appointments were cancelled for not meeting the amended eligibility criteria. The three-judge bench, composed of Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, delivered the judgment, with Justice Roy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants in these cases were all beneficiaries of compassionate appointments, which were later cancelled by the Karnataka government. These appointments were made under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The rules were amended effective 1 April 1999. The amendment changed the eligibility criteria for minor dependents of deceased government employees. Before the amendment, a minor could apply for a compassionate appointment within one year of attaining majority. After the amendment, the minor had to apply within one year of the government employee’s death and had to have attained the age of eighteen years on the date of making the application.

The appellants were appointed under the unamended rules, but their appointments were cancelled because they did not meet the amended criteria. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal upheld the cancellations, and the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the subsequent writ petitions. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants first approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal after their services were terminated. The Tribunal dismissed their applications, holding that they were ineligible for appointment under the amended Rules. The appellants then filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, which were also dismissed. These dismissals led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

In the case of Sayeda F. Banao, the Tribunal initially set aside her termination, directing her reinstatement, but reserved liberty to the State to take action in accordance with law. Subsequently, after an inquiry, she was removed again. The Tribunal, in its second order, found no misconduct but upheld the cancellation of her appointment as it was made in violation of the amended Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, specifically Rule 5 and Rule 9.

The unamended Rule 5 stated:

“Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government Servant was working. Provided that in the case of a minor, application shall be made within a period of one year after attaining majority.”

The amended proviso to Rule 5, effective from 1 April 1999, reads:

“Provided that in the case of a minor, he must make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the date of making the application. Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependant of a deceased Government Servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.”

Rule 9(3), as amended on 28 May 2002, states:

“All applications for appointment on compassionate grounds made between the 13th day of September 1996 and the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) 3rd Amendment Rules, 2002 by the dependents of Government servants who died on or after 20th October 1989 (other than the application made by such dependents after the first day of April, 1999 and till the date of such commencement in contravention of the first proviso to Rule 5 which are : (i) Rejected on the ground that they were not made within the period specified in Rule 5, or (ii)Pending on such date of commencement, shall be deemed to have been made within the period specified under Rule 5 and shall be reconsidered or as the case may be considered for appointment subject to other provisions of these Rules.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that their appointments were legitimate and that they had served without any issues. They contended that Rule 5 is procedural and not mandatory, and that the amended provisions should not apply to them. They argued that their cases should be considered under the unamended rules, which allowed a minor dependent to apply within one year of attaining majority. They also argued that Rule 9 is a transitional provision and that the retrospective application of the amended rules should not lead to the cancellation of their appointments. They further asserted that since the compassionate appointments were offered without any misrepresentation, they should not be rendered jobless.

The respondents argued that the norms applicable at the time of consideration are relevant. Since the appellants had not attained majority within one year of the death of the government employee, they were ineligible for compassionate appointment under the amended rules. They contended that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment and must conform to the prescribed rules. They also argued that the government has the power to rectify mistakes and recall illegal appointment orders.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment under the amended provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs K.R. Vishwanath [ (2005) 7 SCC 206] – Supreme Court of India: The court noted that unless the application was pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no bearing on the claim for compassionate appointment.
• Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 560] – Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by all aspirants.
• SBI vs. Raj Kumar [(2010) 11 SCC 661] – Supreme Court of India: The court declared that the norms in force when the application is actually considered will be applicable, and that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment.
• MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] – Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme, and no aspirant can claim that their case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the government employee.
• Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7 SCC 412] – Supreme Court of India: In the context of a major shift in policy, the court held that the “dying in harness scheme” prevalent on the death of the employee should be the basis for consideration.
• State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari [(2019) 5 SCC 600] – Supreme Court of India: The court referred the matter to a larger bench to reconcile conflicting views on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration should apply.
• State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653] – Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public appointment and that dependents must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.
• Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [MANU/KA/0203/1999] – High Court of Karnataka: The single judge held that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996: The rules governing compassionate appointments in Karnataka, specifically Rule 5 and Rule 9.

Judgment

The Court’s view on the authorities:

• Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs K.R. Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206]: The Court relied on this case to support its view that the amended rules apply to applications not pending at the time of the amendment.
• Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 560]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right.
• SBI vs. Raj Kumar [(2010) 11 SCC 661]: The Court followed this case to reiterate that the norms in force when the application is actually considered will be applicable.
• MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583]: The Court relied on this case to support its view that compassionate appointment must be considered as per the prevalent scheme.
• Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7 SCC 412]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was in the context of a major shift in policy and did not apply to the present case.
• State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari [(2019) 5 SCC 600]: The Court acknowledged this case as a reference to the conflicting views on the issue, but did not rely on it for its decision.
• State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and that dependents must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.
• Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [MANU/KA/0203/1999]: The Court did not follow this case, disagreeing with the single judge’s view that the unamended rules should apply.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the compassionate appointment process and to ensure that it adheres to the rules in force at the time of consideration. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and should not be treated as a matter of right. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the amended rules, which were designed to ensure that appointments are made to those who are genuinely in need and within a reasonable time frame after the death of the government employee. The court also considered that the amendment was brought in to ensure that there was a time limit for applying for compassionate appointment.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized in the following flowchart:

The Court considered the argument that the unamended rules should apply, but rejected it, stating that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration should be the basis for compassionate appointment. The Court also considered the transitional provision under Rule 9(3) but found that it did not apply to the appellants because their applications were in contravention of the amended Rule 5.

The Court concluded that the appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment, and therefore, the cancellation of their appointments was justified.

The Court stated:

“The object of the amended provision is to ensure that no application is filed beyond one year of the death of the government employee.”

“…the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.”

“A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The norms for compassionate appointment are those in force at the time the application is considered, not at the time of the government employee’s death.
• Dependents of deceased government employees do not have a vested right to compassionate appointment; they only have the right to have their application considered.
• Applications for compassionate appointment must strictly adhere to the rules and timelines set by the government.
• The Court upheld the cancellation of appointments that did not meet the amended eligibility criteria.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment specifically analyzes the amendment to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which changed the eligibility criteria for minor dependents. The amendment stipulated that a minor must apply within one year of the government employee’s death and must have attained the age of eighteen years on the date of making the application. This amendment was intended to ensure that applications for compassionate appointment are made within a reasonable time after the death of the government employee.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for compassionate appointment. This clarifies the law on compassionate appointments, establishing that the rules in force at the time of consideration, not at the time of death, are applicable. This decision settles the conflict between the view that the rules at the time of death should apply and the view that the rules at the time of consideration should apply.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the cancellation of the compassionate appointments. The Court held that the amended rules of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, apply to the appellants, and they were ineligible for appointment because they did not meet the criteria set by the amended rules. The judgment clarifies that the norms for compassionate appointment are those in force at the time the application is considered, not at the time of the government employee’s death. This decision has significant implications for future cases involving compassionate appointments.