CWP No.18693 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18693 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.9.2007 Constable Satwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13th January, 2005 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioner has further prayed that by issuing a writ of mandamus, the petitioner be appointed to the post of ASI on compassionate grounds. Brief factual matrix of the case as given in the writ petition is that father of the petitioner namely, Inspector Lalji Ram had died on 11th November, 2003 while in service. His son i.e. the petitioner applied for appointment as ASI on compassionate grounds. His case was recommended by 4th IRB Commandant Battalion, Jalandhar to the CWP No.18693 of 2007 2 Director General of Police. However, the petitioner was offered the post of constable, which he joined as he had no other option. The petitioner has impugned the decision of the respondents in appointing him as a constable and not as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioner has placed reliance on Instructions of the Government Annexures P-4 to P-8 dated 5.2.1996, 8.8.1996, 12.7.1999, 10.8.1999 and 21.11.2002 respectively with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds. A detailed reply has been filed by the respondents rebutting the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated in the reply that after death of Lalji Ram- father of the petitioner, an application was submitted by his mother Smt. Gurmeet Kaur requesting that the petitioner be appointed as ASI on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the competent authority i.e. the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh who constituted a committee of three officers one Inspector General of Police, one of Deputy Inspector General of Police and one of Superintendent of Police rank to adjudge the suitability of the petitioner for the post of ASI. The petitioner was subjected to a written test and interview by the said committee. However, he did not qualify the same and thus not found suitable for the post of ASI. Information was sent to the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 18th July, 2005 requesting that he may be appointed as a constable in the police department on compassionate ground. Showing sympathy with the family of the CWP No.18693 of 2007 3 deceased employee, the respondents decided to appoint him as a constable in the police department. The petitioner is at present serving as constable in 27th Battalion of Punjab Armed Police. The respondents have further averred in their reply that the 1996 Instructions (Annexure P-4) on which the petitioner has relied, clearly lay down that applicants seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, should be appointed only if they are found eligible and suitable in all respects for the post in question. It has been further stated in the reply that according to the instructions (Annexure P-4) once compassionate appointment has already been accepted against a particular post, another request for compassionate appointment on equivalent or higher post cannot be entertained. According to the respondents the post of constable being a Class-III post, carries handsome salary and petitioner himself requested for being appointed against the said post. Thus, the plea of the petitioner was totally misplaced and deserved to be rejected as no fault could be found with the action of the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that after death of his father, petitioner's mother submitted an application to the respondents for appointment of the petitioner as an ASI. The said application was duly forwarded to the Director General of Police who constituted a committee of three IPS officers, the senior most being Inspector General of Police/ Head Quarter, next being DIG/ Administration and the third Commandant of 4th CDO, Mohali. The CWP No.18693 of 2007 4 said committee adjudged the suitability of the petitioner for the post of ASI. However, he did not qualify for the said post. He, thus, opted to be appointed as a constable. The respondents taking a sympathetic view, particularly the fact that father of the petitioner had died in harness, took a decision to appoint him as constable which post he willingly joined. We, therefore, find that the petitioner cannot now make a grievance that he was not appointed to the post of ASI as having failed to qualify for the said post, he willingly opted for being appointed him as constable. Even the instructions (Annexure P-4 to P-8) relied upon by the petitioner, do not help his case in any manner. On the other hand, it is clear that the respondents acting benevolently, appointed the petitioner on the post of constable as his father had died while in harness. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Smt. Kamala Gaind Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1992 (5) Services Law Reporter 864 to contend that the petitioner should have been appointed to higher post. However, a perusal of the judgment shows that this case relates to an Additional District Judge in Punjab Judicial Service, who was gunned down by the terrorists. The Apex Court observed that persons in similar situations i.e. dependents of public servants killed by terrorists, had been offered Class-I posts. Thus, a direction was issued to provide a suitable post of Class-I to the appellant in the said case. However, CWP No.18693 of 2007 5 present is a case where father of the petitioner died while in service but not due to any terrorist violence. He died on 11th November, 2003 due to a heart attack. Thus, ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Another judgment relied upon by the petitioner is Smt. Shanti Devi etc. Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (6) Services Law Reporter 320 where a Division Bench of this court held that instructions regarding appointment on compassionate ground have to be followed and the post offered should be commensurate to the academic qualification of the applicant. In the said case, the petitioner was a graduate Engineer but was offered a job of Junior Engineer in the Panchayaat Department. However, in the present case, the petitioner was not found suitable for the post of ASI. Thus, he chould not be appointed to the said post. The instructions pertaining to the State of Punjab were kept in view by the respondents. The Supreme Court in the case reported as I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 (6) Supreme Court Cases 162 held that a person cannot be appointed on compassionate ground unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criterion in the police department, no recommendation could be made in violation of the rules. It was also held that appointment on compassionate ground could be given only for meeting immediate hardship which is faced by the family of the deceased and when such appointment was made, it should be confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for CWP No.18693 of 2007 6 endless compassion. The appointment had to be in consonance with the constitutional scheme. In the said case the applicant applied for the post of constable, his father had died in harness while in service of Uttar Pradesh Police. However, the applicant was found unsuitable for the post of constable. He was, thus, appointed as a peon which post he accepted without any demur. The Apex Court thus held that having been appointed to a lower post, the employee thereafter could not be permitted to turn around and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not found suitable therefor. Another judgment of the Apex Court on the similar lines is State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, 1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases 448 where a constable in Haryana Police died in harness. His son was appointed as a clerk which post he willingly accepted. However, later his mother requested that her son be appointed as an Inspector. On his claim for the post of Inspector being rejected, the applicant preferred a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. However, on an appeal filed by the State, the Apex Court set-aside the judgment and remitted it to the High Court for fresh consideration, observing that the applicant did not object to his appointment as clerk. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per scheme had been completed as the applicant willingly accepted the same. CWP No.18693 of 2007 7 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner failed to qualify for the post of ASI whereafter he himself opted for being appointed as a constable. Thus, he cannot raise a grievance now that he was entitled to be appointed to a higher post. In any case, appointment on compassionate ground has to be in consonance with the constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and the purpose for making appointments on compassionate grounds has to be kept in view by the appointing authority at the time of appointment, the purpose being to alleviate the immediate hardship faced by the family on death of bread winner of the family. The purpose cannot be to show endless compassion. Once this objective is achieved, the immediate financial hardship to the family is taken care of. The purpose of compassionate appointment ends there. The employer thereafter is under no obligation to consider representations of the appointee for a higher post. In case such requests are entertained by the employer, anomalous situations are likely to arise, which would clearly be against the constitutional scheme. This, in our view, is impermissible in law. A scheme which is formulated by the Government to provide succor cannot be used for furthering one's career prospects. This is not the objective of the scheme. Its scope cannot be enlarged or expanded to entertain fresh requests for appointment to higher posts after having been once appointed on compassionate ground. CWP No.18693 of 2007 8 We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE September 10, 2008 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes / No