UNION OF INDIA Vs. JOGINDER SHARMA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-91
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
September 30,2002
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
JOGINDER SHARMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ASHA RAMCHHANDRA AMBEKAR MRS [REFERRED]Cited Judgements :-
CHHAVI RAJ VS. VICE CHANCELLOR [LAWS(DLH)-2003-8-72] [REFERRED TO]ANKUR VAHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA DUDEJA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2004-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVYA MEHTA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-144] [REFERRED TO]
KANTI SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-167] [REFERRED TO]
FARHAT HUSSAIN AZAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
SANJOY SUKLA DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIB KALITA VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2003-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNATH PUSHPRAJ VS. GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2004-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIB PAUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN VS. MARWAR GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN SINGH ALIAS KISHAN SINGH VS. BALRAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2009-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG AWASTHI VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. UPENDRA P BAROT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHANKAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-192] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANGSHU PAUL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAINA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(HPH)-2003-5-14] [REFERRED]
M.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. ARUNA PYASI [LAWS(MPH)-2003-3-140] [REFERRED]
GEETA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-341] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY VS. SUJITH [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
SK IMRAN ALI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. Raju, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The respondents father, late Umed Singh, working as a Security Guard in the office of NOIDA Export Processing Zone, Ministry of Commerce, died on 20.02.1999, while in service. Claiming to be entitled to compassionate appointment in Group C or Group D vacancies of Post, under the policy in vogue the respondent applied for such appointment, on 3.3.1999. Since the appointment on compassionate grounds could be only against the 5 per cent of the vacancies arising, the request for his appointment could not be complied with the percentage reserved therefore having been already exhausted and the Department of Personnel and Training also declining to relax the regulation relating to ceiling of 5 per cent, noticed above. The chances of accommodating elsewhere also were found to be remote, after exploring the possibility.
(3.)Consequently, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1636 of 2000 and by an Order dated 5.2.2001, a single Member directed the appellant herein to consider relaxing the limit or ceiling of 5 per cent in the Scheme and consider appointing the respondent against one of the posts available in the office of the Development Commissioner, subject, of course, to his fulfilling the required qualifications, etc., within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. An application, seeking for the review of the same, moved by the appellant also came to be dismissed. Earlier to the application for review, the application filed to set aside the order passed in the main O.A. ex parte came to be also dismissed. Resultantly, the appellant moved the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 5616 of 2001, challenging the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court also declined to interfere and dismissed the Writ Petition by an Order dated 26.09.2001. Hence, the appeal before this Court.
(2.)The respondents father, late Umed Singh, working as a Security Guard in the office of NOIDA Export Processing Zone, Ministry of Commerce, died on 20.02.1999, while in service. Claiming to be entitled to compassionate appointment in Group C or Group D vacancies of Post, under the policy in vogue the respondent applied for such appointment, on 3.3.1999. Since the appointment on compassionate grounds could be only against the 5 per cent of the vacancies arising, the request for his appointment could not be complied with the percentage reserved therefore having been already exhausted and the Department of Personnel and Training also declining to relax the regulation relating to ceiling of 5 per cent, noticed above. The chances of accommodating elsewhere also were found to be remote, after exploring the possibility.
(3.)Consequently, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1636 of 2000 and by an Order dated 5.2.2001, a single Member directed the appellant herein to consider relaxing the limit or ceiling of 5 per cent in the Scheme and consider appointing the respondent against one of the posts available in the office of the Development Commissioner, subject, of course, to his fulfilling the required qualifications, etc., within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. An application, seeking for the review of the same, moved by the appellant also came to be dismissed. Earlier to the application for review, the application filed to set aside the order passed in the main O.A. ex parte came to be also dismissed. Resultantly, the appellant moved the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 5616 of 2001, challenging the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court also declined to interfere and dismissed the Writ Petition by an Order dated 26.09.2001. Hence, the appeal before this Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.