The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether qualification which has been obtained after the date of application is required to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna issued notice in the SLP assailing Delhi High Court's order preferred by Delhi Jal Board returnable on February 2, 2022. The High Court's order was also stayed by the Top Court. The High Court had held that the qualification which the applicant possessed at the time of consideration of application can be taken into account.
The petitioner's counsel had submitted that respondent applied for appointment on compassionate ground on March 23, 2010 and on that day she had not completed the Graduation and had acquired the Graduation qualification subsequently. It was also the counsel's contention that the qualification on the date of the application for appointment on compassionate ground was to be considered and if it was so the respondent was not eligible for appointment as LDC.
Case Before Delhi High Court
Delhi Jal Board had approached the High Court assailing the order dated May 3, 2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") in which the Tribunal had observed that the respondent's daughter Preeti should have been considered and offered the appointment as LDC after considering her qualification.
The counsel for DJB had contended that on the date when the respondent/her daughter Ms. Preeti had applied for compassionate appointment; she was not an Arts graduate and did not even have the provisional graduation certificate available to her which was issued subsequently.
The High Court bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw & Amit Bansal while dismissing DJB's writ observed,
"We have next enquired from the counsel for the petitioner DJB, whether the qualification on the date of application for compassionate appointment or the qualification on the date of consideration by the Screening Committee, has to be considered. Neither is there any plea of the date on which the Screening Committee considered the case of the daughter of the respondent for compassionate appointment nor are there any documents in this regard being shown.
In the entirety of the circumstances aforesaid, considering the delay on the part of the petitioner DJB and considering that the case relates to compassionate appointment and CAT vide the impugned order has already directed the petitioner DJB to consider the case of the respondent/her daughter, we do not find this to be a fit case to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Delhi Jal Board v Nirmala Devi| Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20935/2021
Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna