Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking directions for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in the Public Works Department, Goa (‘PWD’), the Division Bench of M. S. Karnik and Nivedita P. Mehta*, JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the State was in the process of considering the petitioner’s claim within the framework of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, Goa (‘the Scheme’) and granting him an appointment out of turn would prejudice other candidates on the waitlist and violate the principles of fairness and equality.
Background
Petitioner’s father passed away while in service as a Pump Operator in the PWD, leaving behind his wife and two sons. The petitioner submitted applications to the PWD detailing his financial situation and employment status. It was contended that due to a delay in processing his applications for compassionate appointment, the petitioner made several representations to various authorities.
The Department of Personnel informed the petitioner that his application for a compassionate appointment was processed, placing him at serial no. 138 on the seniority waitlist of candidates seeking compassionate appointments. Thereafter, he was promoted to serial no. 127.
The petitioner contended that despite vacancies, he was not given a compassionate appointment. The State informed him that compassionate appointments could only be made if regular vacancies were available, and he could not immediately be appointed due to the non-availability of such vacancies. Aggrieved by this impugned communication, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis
The Court stated that compassionate appointments were not a vested right but a concession to assist families facing financial hardship due to the death of a breadwinner. Such appointments must be scrutinised based on established guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency.
Regarding the contention that candidates placed below the petitioner on the seniority list were selected, the Court stated that the petitioner had misinterpreted the Scheme. The Court stated that those candidates were appointed according to the recruitment rules for their respective posts, which required specific qualifications that the petitioner did not possess. Hence, there was no illegality on the part of the State.
The Court stated that the State had to consider the waitlist of candidates maintained by them in ascending order as per the date of their applications. If the petitioner were to be granted a compassionate appointment out of turn, it would cause serious prejudice to the other waitlisted candidates placed above him and amount to discrimination. Moreover, similarly situated candidates placed above the petitioner on the waitlist were still waiting in queue to secure appointments.
In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh (2023) 13 SCC 343, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that the appointment of a candidate on a compassionate basis did not create any vested right and that it was only when the candidate was covered under all the clauses of the applicable scheme, that he/she would be considered for compassionate appointment.
The Court also delved into every judgment relied upon by the petitioner and stated that none of them supported his case.
The Court opined that the object of compassionate appointment was to relieve the hardship due to the death of a breadwinner in the family, and the appointment was provided to redeem the family in distress. At the same time, it was to be borne in mind that compassionate appointment could not be construed as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. The Court added that a Court was supposed to endeavour whether, in a particular case, sympathetic consideration was to be weighed within the ambit of the law.
The Court noted that the State was in the process of considering the petitioner’s claim within the framework of the Scheme.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that granting the petitioner an appointment out of turn would prejudice other candidates on the waitlist and violate the principles of fairness and equality. The Court further held that it could not compel the State to deviate from the established guidelines for compassionate appointments.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Dayanand Sharad Dicholkar v. State of Goa, Writ Petition No. 484 of 2024, decided on 16-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Nivedita P. Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Swati S. Kamat Wagh
For the respondents: Government Advocate Manish Salkar