THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD  TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS versus REVAT SINGH
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 249, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 249 
THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD 
A 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS 
v. 
REVATSINGH 
(CivilAppeal No.2061 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service law - Compassionate appointment - Grant of, 
when candidate ineligible for the post - On facts, father 
employed as driver with the appellant-State Road Transport C 
Corporation, died in harness - Son-respondent sought 
compassionate appointment on the post of driver but his 
application was rejected since he did not qualify for the post 
- However, the High Court directed the appellant to consider 0 
his case against the post of driver on compassionate ground 
- Held: Court and tribunals do not have the power to issue 
direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation 
of eligibility or in contravention thereof- Thus, order passed 
by the High Court is set aside as the respondent was not E 
qualified for the post. 
l.G.[Karmik] and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi2007 
(5) SCR 978: (2007) 6 SCC 162; Steel Authority of India 
Limited v. Madhusudan Das 2008 ( 14) SCR 824 : (2008) 15 
SCC 560; State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T Tiwari 2012 (7) 
F 
SCR 1072: (2012) 9 SCC 545- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2007 (5) SCR 978 
2008 (14) SCR 824 
2012 (7) SCR 1072 
249 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
G 
H
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2061 of2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil 
B Special Appeal (W) No. 428 of2014 
S. K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam for the 
Appellants. 
Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1.This appeal is directed 
against judgment and order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in D.B. Civil Special 
D Appeal (W) No. 428 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench 
declined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single 
Judge. 
E 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and 
perused the record. 
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father 
of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter 
referred to as the "Corporation"). He died in harness on 
F 26.6.2006. The respondent sought compassionate 
appointment on the post of driver. His educational qualification 
was 81h standard pass. The appellants considered the 
application for appointment on compassionate ground, and 
rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was not 
G qualified either for the post of driver or that of conductor. The 
respondent was accordingly communicated by the appellants 
vide letter dated 18.1.2008. The respondent made
further 
correspondence in the matter after obtaining driving licence 
on 23.1.2007. However, said licence was not for heavy 
H vehicles. When the appellants did not accept request for
THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. 251 
REVAT SINGH [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
appointment against the post of driver, the respondent filed A 
writ petition no. 1892 of 2011 which was allowed by the learned 
Single Judge vide order dated 29.1.2014, directing the 
appellant to consider case of the respondent for the post of 
driver. 
B 
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, 
the appellant filed intra court appeal, but the same was 
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide 
impugned order dated 1.5.2014 declining to interfere with the 
order of learned Single Judge, and observed that the said order c 
advances the cause of justice considering the hardship faced 
by the family of deceased employee. However, it was further 
observed by the Division Bench that the order would be treated 
to have been passed in the special facts and circumstances 
of the case. 
D 
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Rajasthan State 
Road Corporation - submitted before this Court that the High 
Court has erred in law in directing the appellant to consider 
the case of respondent for appointment against the post of 
driver on the compassionate ground. It is specifically pointed 
E 
out that the respondent is not qualified for the post of driver as 
he is neither matriculate nor possessed driving licence for 
heavy vehicles. 
6. Shri Virender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the 
F 
respondent, did not deny that the respondent was only 81h 
standard pass,
and the driving licence obtained in the year 
2007, was in respect of light vehicles. 
7. During arguments, we are informed by learned counsel G 
for the appellant-Corporation that respondent has now been 
·offered and engaged as Artisan Grade Ill. On behalf of the 
respondent, it is pleaded that the respondent be engaged at 
least against post of Artisan Grade 11. However, there is nothing 
on the record to show that such post is lying vacant nor is it H
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A clear that a person can be directly appointed to the post of 
Artisan Grade II. 
8. In l.G.(Karmik) and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi 
(2007) 6 SCC 162, this Court has held that compassionate 
8 appointment can not be granted to a post for which the 
candidate is ineligible. It is further held in said case that even 
though higher post was applied for on compassionate ground, 
when a lower post offered considering qualification and 
eligibility as per rules was accepted by the candidate, he cannot 
c claim higher post. 
9. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan 
Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560, this Court has clarified the law 
relating to compassionate appointments in following words: 
D 
"15. This Court in a large number of decisions has 
held that the appointment on compassionate ground 
cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be 
provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor 
viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the 
E 
family, must be established. It is meant to provide for 
a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, 
the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making 
such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all 
F 
eligible candidates should be considered for 
appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. 
Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a 
dependant of a deceased employee is an exception
to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. (See 
G 
SB/ v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 para 33.)" 
10. In State ofGujaratv. ArvindkumarT. Tiwari, (2012) 
9 sec 545, this Court while examining the law in the matters 
of compassionate appointment, has made following 
H observations:
THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. 253 
REVAT SINGH [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
"11. The courts and tribunals do not have the power 
A 
to issue direction to make appointment by way of 
granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention 
thereof. In State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 
165, this Court while dealing with a similar issue 
rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held 
B 
as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31) 
"31 . ... The courts as also the tribunals have 
no power to override the mandatory 
provisions of the Rules on sympathetic 
consideration that a person, though not 
possessing the essential educational 
qualifications, should be allowed to continue 
on the post merely on the basis of his 
experience. Such an order would amount to 
altering or amending the statutory provisions 
made by the Government under Article 309 
of the Constitution." 
"12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for 
admission to a course falls within the exclusive 
domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the 
subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be 
arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without 
keeping in mind the nature of service, for which 
appointments are to be made, or has no rational 
nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the 
statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the 
purpose ofpromotion, unilaterally and the person 
seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance 
that he should be governed only
by the rules existing, 
when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, 
the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far 
as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must 
meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H

254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the 
appointments so made, or the rejection of a 
candidature is found to have been done at the cost of 
"fair play", "good conscience" and "equity". (Vide State 
of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma (1999)3 sec 653 and 
B 
Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 8 sec 
633.)" 
11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court 
as above, we are of the opinion that since the respondent was 
c not qualified for the post of driver, as such the High Court erred 
in law in directing the appellant to consider his case against 
the post of driver of heavy vehicle. 
12. Therefore in the above circumstances, this appeal 
deserves to be allowed as the respondent is not qualified for 
D the post of driver. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However, 
the respondent shall be allowed to work on the post of Artisan 
Grade 111 as offered to him. No order as to cost. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed.