Supreme Court Upholds Seniority of Compassionate Appointees over Direct Recruits in Engineering Services

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 March 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 230

Judges: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka.

Can individuals appointed on compassionate grounds claim seniority over those directly recruited through a competitive process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue in a case concerning the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. This judgment clarifies the principles governing seniority disputes between compassionate appointees and direct recruits, particularly in cases where compassionate appointments were made outside the standard recruitment procedures. The bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Rastogi.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the seniority of Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. The appellants were direct recruits who were selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (the Commission) in 1991-1992 and 1993-1995, and appointed in 1995 and 1998, respectively. They were contesting their placement in the seniority list published by the State authorities on 1st January 2004, where they were ranked junior to those appointed on compassionate grounds.

The State Government had issued G.O. No. 225 on 15th February 1972, providing for compassionate appointments. This was later amended by G.O. No. 1119 on 20th May 1981, which allowed for temporary appointments of qualified dependents to technical posts under the purview of the Commission, with the condition that they would later have to appear for the open competition. G.O. No. 156 on 16th July 1993, further modified the policy, allowing for the regularization of technically qualified dependents appointed on compassionate grounds, or for those appointed prior, to get their services regularized with the Commission’s concurrence.

As a result, compassionate appointees fell into two categories: (i) those initially appointed temporarily after 20th May 1981, and regularized from 16th July 1993; and (ii) those appointed after 16th July 1993, whose initial appointment was considered regular. The direct recruits argued that compassionate appointments were an exception to the regular mode of recruitment and that they should not be placed senior to them.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The service conditions of Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service are governed by the Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. The modes of recruitment for Assistant Engineers include:

• Direct recruitment
• Recruitment by transfer from various subordinate services

Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, governs the determination of seniority. Specifically, Rule 35(aa) states that seniority is assigned from the date of regular appointment.

The judgment also refers to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Arguments

The appellants (direct recruits) argued that:

• Compassionate appointments are an exception to the regular recruitment process and should not grant seniority over direct recruits.
• The compassionate appointees were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis, and their regularization should not give them a march over those who were selected through a competitive process.
• Compassionate appointments to Class II posts were a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138].
• The second batch of compassionate appointees were appointed after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nagpal’s case, which restricted compassionate appointments to Class III and IV posts.
• The delay in challenging the seniority list should not be attributed to them as they became aggrieved only when the seniority list was published on 1st January 2004.

The respondents (State and compassionate appointees) argued that:

• Compassionate appointments were made in accordance with the Government Orders issued from time to time.
• Compassionate appointees joined service much before the direct recruits, and their services were regularized in accordance with the rules.
• Seniority was rightly assigned to them from the date of their regular appointment as per Rule 35(aa) of the Rules, 1955.
• The compassionate appointees had served for a long time, and their appointments and seniority should not be disturbed at this belated stage.

The State also submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagpal’s case was communicated to the State Government only on 27th September 2001, after which they put a ban on compassionate appointments except for certain categories.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the compassionate appointees are entitled to claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers as published on 1st January, 2004.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to highlight that compassionate appointments should be restricted to Class III and IV posts.

Legal Provisions:

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – These articles were cited to emphasize the principles of equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 – This rule was cited as the basis for determining seniority based on the date of regular appointment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]: The Court acknowledged that the State had violated the principles laid down in this case by continuing compassionate appointments to Class II posts after this judgment. However, the court refrained from disturbing the seniority of the compassionate appointees.
• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: The Court recognized these articles but did not find them sufficient to overturn the seniority assigned to the compassionate appointees, given their regularization and long service.
• Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955: The Court upheld this rule as the basis for assigning seniority based on the date of regular appointment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• Long Service of Compassionate Appointees: The Court noted that the compassionate appointees had been in service for more than two decades and were further promoted. Disturbing their seniority at this stage would cause significant prejudice.
• Regularization of Compassionate Appointees: The Court observed that the compassionate appointees were either regularized from 16th July 1993, or their initial appointment was considered regular. This regularization entitled them to seniority as per Rule 35(aa).
• Timing of Direct Recruits’ Appointments: The direct recruits joined service after the compassionate appointees were regularized, which justified the seniority assigned to the latter.
• Violation of Nagpal’s Case: While the Court acknowledged that the State Government had violated the principles laid down in Nagpal’s case, it refrained from disturbing the seniority due to humanitarian considerations and the long service of the appointees.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that compassionate appointments to Class II posts were in violation of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nagpal’s case. While the Court acknowledged the violation, it decided not to interfere with the seniority list due to the long service of the compassionate appointees and the humanitarian aspect. The Court also noted that the compassionate appointees were not at fault and their appointments were made under the existing government orders.

The Court quoted the following from Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]:

“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased.”

“The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non­manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”

“The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”

The Court emphasized that the State Government’s practice of making compassionate appointments to Group ‘B’ posts after the Nagpal judgment was not appropriate but the court refrained from disturbing the seniority list.

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointments, while an exception to regular recruitment, can confer seniority based on the date of regularization or regular appointment.
• The Supreme Court has acknowledged that compassionate appointments to Class II posts after the Nagpal judgment are not in line with the law.
• Courts may be reluctant to disturb settled seniority lists, especially when the appointees have served for a long time.
• State Governments must ensure that compassionate appointments are made in accordance with the law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment discusses the amendments made to the compassionate appointment policy through various Government Orders (G.O.s). These amendments include:

• G.O. No. 225 (15th February 1972): Initial provision for compassionate appointments.
• G.O. No. 1119 (20th May 1981): Allowed temporary compassionate appointments to technical posts under the purview of the Commission.
• G.O. No. 156 (16th July 1993): Allowed regularization of technically qualified dependents appointed on compassionate grounds.
• G.O. No. 61 (19th July 2006): Restricted compassionate appointments to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even though compassionate appointments to Class II posts after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nagpal’s case are not in line with the law, the seniority of such appointees will not be disturbed if they have been regularized and have served for a long period, especially when the direct recruits joined service after their regularization. The judgment reaffirms the importance of Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, in determining seniority based on the date of regular appointment. This case highlights the complex balance between the need to provide relief to families of deceased employees and the principles of equal opportunity in public employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the direct recruits, upholding the seniority of the compassionate appointees. The Court acknowledged the State Government’s violation of the principles laid down in Nagpal’s case by continuing compassionate appointments to Class II posts, but refrained from disturbing the seniority of the compassionate appointees due to their long service and regularization. The judgment emphasizes the significance of Rule 35(aa) in determining seniority and highlights the complex interplay between humanitarian considerations and legal principles in service law.