Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition praying to direct the District Inspector of Schools, Kasganj (‘DIOS’) to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment as a Clerk with the Sant Tulsidas Municipal Inter College, Kasganj (‘Institution’) made by the Management on 06.-3-2024 under the Dying-in-Rules, the single judge bench of J.J. Munir, J*. issued a mandamus to the Manager of the Institution to report all necessary particulars regarding the death of the petitioner’s father to the DIOS within seven days of receiving the order. The DIOS was then directed to process the petitioner’s case in accordance with Regulations 104 and 105 under the (‘Act, 1921’) and present it to the Committee for consideration. The Committee was instructed to make a decision regarding the petitioner’s appointment within one month of receiving the particulars. After the Committee’s recommendations were made, DIOS was to issue the necessary instructions for the petitioner’s appointment within another month.
Background:
The petitioner, whose father was employed as a peon at an institution managed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, applied for a compassionate appointment after his father’s death in November 2023. Although the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in March 2024, the approval process has been delayed. The District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) raised concerns and referred the matter to the Joint Director of Education for guidance. Despite following the necessary steps, the appointment has not been finalized, and the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking redressal for the delay and lack of action by the authorities.
Analysis and Decision:
After perusing the entire scheme for selection and appointment under the Regulations 104-107, the Court said that the Regulations aforesaid envisage a complete scheme for compassionate appointment and the power to select a candidate on compassionate ground does not at all vest with the Management of the Institution, where the deceased employee was serving.
The Court noted that entire scheme of Regulations 104-107 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 does not at all authorize the management of the institution, where the employee, who died in harness, was working, to recommend any compassionate appointment, much less make it and afterwards seek approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The procedure envisaged under Regulations 104-107 has to be followed for such an appointment to be made, where the management and the principal of the institution have no role, except to comply with the instructions of the District Inspector of Schools, in turn issued, based on the recommendations of the Committee concerned.
The Court said that if the petitioner had applied to the Management for consideration of his case vide application dated 27-01-2024, that occasion should not have arisen. The Management of the Institution should have reported the matter with all necessary particulars to the DIOS under Regulation 104 and the DIOS ought to have processed the claim after entering it in the prescribed register. The Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, who is the Manager of the Institution, certainly had no right to issue the letter of appointment dated 06-03-2024 to the petitioner and then send papers to the DIOS for his approval. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner is contrary to the scheme of the provisions of Regulations 104-107 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921. It does not confer upon the petitioner any right. It is void.
The Court highlighted that being void, any kind of approval to it, even if given, would not imbue it with life. There was no occasion for the DIOS to have sought directions from the Joint Director of Education. He ought to have entered the petitioner’s particulars in the register, processed the claim and placed it before the Committee, envisaged under Regulation 105, for their consideration. This would be followed by necessary direction for appointment to whichever institution these had to be issued.
The Court said that the petitioner’s application dated 27-01-2024 to the Management should not have been necessary. Instead, the Management of the Institution should have reported the matter, along with all necessary particulars, to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) as required under Regulation 104. The DIOS, in turn, was expected to process the claim after entering it in the prescribed register. The Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, who also serves as the Manager of the Institution, had no authority to issue the letter of appointment dated 06-03-2024 to the petitioner and subsequently seek approval from the DIOS. The Court ruled that the letter of appointment was issued in violation of the provisions under Regulations 104-107 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the , rendering it void.
The Court emphasized that since the appointment letter was void, any approval given thereafter could not validate or give life to the appointment. The DIOS, rather than seeking directions from the Joint Director of Education, should have entered the petitioner’s details into the prescribed register, processed the claim, and placed it before the Committee outlined in Regulation 105 for consideration. The Committee would then issue the necessary directions for the appointment in accordance with the applicable rules. The Court highlighted the importance of following the established procedures, pointing out that the failure to do so resulted in the invalidation of the petitioner’s appointment.
The Court acknowledged that while the Joint Director of Education was correct in directing the DIOS to proceed in accordance with Regulation 105, the DIOS failed to follow the proper procedures. Instead of processing the petitioner’s appointment as per the regulations, DIOS sent the papers back to the Management with the assertion that the petitioner had not undergone the necessary typing test, which was a requirement for the position. On this basis, the DIOS refused to approve the appointment and sent the matter back to the Management with an order dated 22-08-2024. However, the Court noted that the DIOS’s approach was flawed, and while the typographical test may be required for certain appointments, it is not a precondition for consideration of the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment.
The Court stated that the DIOS should have proceeded with the necessary actions under Regulation 105, which involves considering the petitioner’s particulars before the Committee constituted under Regulation 104. The Committee, under Regulation 105, would be responsible for evaluating the petitioner’s suitability for the post, including determining if a typing test is necessary. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment, but the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted in the exact terms requested. Instead, the Court tailored the relief to give effect to the petitioner’s rights while adhering to the regulatory framework.
To ensure compliance, the Court issued a mandamus to the Manager of the Institution to report all necessary particulars regarding the death of the petitioner’s father to the DIOS within seven days of receiving the order. The DIOS was then directed to process the petitioner’s case in accordance with Regulations 104 and 105 and present it to the Committee for consideration. The Committee was instructed to make a decision regarding the petitioner’s appointment within one month of receiving the particulars. After the Committee’s recommendations were made, DIOS was to issue the necessary instructions for the petitioner’s appointment within another month.
The Court emphasized that the DIOS must ensure that the mandamus is carried out diligently and without fail, ensuring the petitioner’s right to be considered for compassionate appointment is respected.
[Satish Chandra v. State of U.P, Writ – A No. 16406 of 2024, decided 04-12-2024]
*Judgment by: Justice J.J. Munir
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner: Sudeep Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.,Saurabh Tiwari
The post appeared first on .