Tribal's Son Appointed On Compassionate Grounds Must Produce Caste Certificate If Not Submitted By Parent: Bombay High Court Full Bench

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ravendra Ghuge and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi dismissed two writ petitions seeking directions to the Department of Rural Development to exempt the petitioners from producing a caste certificate since their appointment was on compassionate grounds.

A judgement authored by Justice Ghuge answered the following question in the affirmative-

"Whether, a compassionate appointee, is not required to submit a caste/tribe validity certificate when the parent had secured employment, on the basis of a caste/tribe certificate, on a post which was specifically reserved for a backward category and who did not submit a validity certificate until his/her demise while in service?"

While CJ Dipankar Datta concurred with the judgement, he added in a separate note that in our country, the dishonest spare no opportunity to obtain benefits and privileges which are not meant for them by fraud or deceit.

"If an usurper of a public office for decades does not have any right to claim pensionary benefits, a fortiori, any dependent family member of such usurper of public office can have no better rights than him," the Chief said.

The petitioners had been appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of their respective fathers. The fathers had been on posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes. However, they had not submitted Tribal Validity Certificate during their appointments. The Nanded Zilla Parishad appointed the petitioners on compassionate grounds with a condition that they had to produce their Tribal Validity Certificate within six months of the appointment. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging this.

Advocate Mahesh S. Deshmukh assisting the court submitted that a person appointed to a reserved category post has to submit a validity certificate. If he doesn't, his legal heir who secures the compassionate employment after his death has to submit his validity certificate.

Advocate C. R. Thorat for the petitioner cited various judgments and argued that while the appointment of the fathers had been on reserved category posts, the compassionate appointment of the petitioner was not made against reserved category posts.

The court analysed the submissions and various precedents and concluded that no other court had dealt with the question of law in this matter. Justice Ravindra Ghuge pronounced the judgement dismissing the petitions due to lack of merit.

In his concurring opinion, the Chief Justice said that the question of law in this case is an important question. He said that a public office is not heritable and the issue of compassionate appointment is a policy matter. "Any claim for a compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the policy/guidelines framed in this behalf and cannot be claimed as a matter of right", Chief Justice said.

He said that reservation is intended to bring about adequate representation of categories that are not adequately represented in the services as well as empowerment of the backward classes. "Such policy can never produce the desired results if the reserved posts are occupied by persons other than those for whom they are set apart", he added.

He stated that the appointment of the deceased employees could only be considered valid if they had produced their validity certificate. If the employer had taken action against them during their lifetime, they would be out of service. So, the family members cannot take advantage of the illegal appointment just because the employees died. "An illegal appointment in the past cannot provide justification for a present grant and this must be the guiding factor", Chief Justice Datta added.

Justice Ghuge relied on Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. and concluded, "good governance would mandate that a compassionate appointee who gains entry in employment only on the basis of his father's appointment to a post reserved for a backward category, has to submit his validity certificate".

He answered the framed issue in affirmative and stated, "the reserved category post occupied by the deceased employee would not be converted into an open category post after the demise of the employee".

Case No. – Writ Petition No. 6750 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 6771 of 2022

Case Title – Om v. Sate of Maharashtra and Anr. & Shital v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Coram – Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Vibha Kankanwadi

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment