The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The court held that the refusal was based on a complete job freeze for non-teaching staff and distinguished the cited precedent where no such ban existed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3990 of 2006
Sudhir Kumar Sinha, son of late Khushi Lal Sinha, resident of Qr. No. 79/2/3 Road No.6 Adityapur, Police Station-Adityapur, District-Seraikella Kharswan. … … Petitioner
Versus
1.The National Institute of Technology through its Board of governors, Jamshedpur. 2.The Director, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. 3.The Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur.
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate 17/Dated: 16th June, 2016
In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Order No. NIT(E)-3132, now NIT, dated 14.11.2003 whereby the Board of Governor, NIT refused to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
The father of the petitioner was in the service of Regional Institute of Technology (R.I.T.), Jamshedpur, as instructor, who died in harness on 3rd June, 2002 while in service of R.I.T.
The mother of this petitioner filed an application after the death of her husband for claiming death-cum-retiral benefits and also for appointment of this petitioner on compassionate ground. As the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, a writ application was filed by this petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 4486 of 2002 which was disposed of on 22.11.2002 with a direction to give all admissible death-cum-retiral benefits and also to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The Board of Governors of N.I.T., thereafter, on 03.03.2003 deferred consideration and ultimately on 14.11.2003 the petitioner was communicated that in the meeting of 3rd Board of Governors held on 24.09.2003 the request for compassionate appointment was not accepted.
The petitioner challenged his rejection order mainly on the ground that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and since the father of the petitioner was working with N.I.T. Jamshedpur, and died in harness, he should have been appointed on compassionate ground.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bhagat @ Jitendra Nath Bhagat & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2006(2)JLR 395 and LPA No. 595 of 2004 (Kanak Kumari Vs. National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur) and submits that the petitioner case has been wrongly rejected.
The N.I.T. has filed counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit they have brought on record the decisions taken in the meeting of the Directors of N.I.T. held on 27.07.2002. In the said meeting it was deiced that to achieve the ratio between teaching and non-teaching staffs as 1:1.5, no non-teaching posts is to be filled even if the vacancies exit.
Further in the supplementary counter-affidavit they have brought on record the decision of the Board of Governors, NIT, Jamshedpur, while considering the case of the petitioner and it has been held that since there is a complete job freeze at the institute in respect of appointment, no appointment can be granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned i.e. the order dated 14.11.2003 is absolutely nonspeaking order which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submits that the case of the petitioner has to be reconsidered by the Board of Governors of N.I.T.
Learned counsel for the N.I.T. submits that the letter dated 14.11.2003 is a mere communication of the decision of the Board of Governors and has referred to the decision of the Board of Governors annexed along with supplementary counter-affidavit which is dated 24th September, 2003.
The resolution of 24th September, 2003 reads as follows:
“Resolution: BOG did not agree to the proposal since there is a complete job freeze at the Institute and BOG had at its first meeting agreed not to appoint any one any further on compassionate ground.”
From bare perusal of the resolution, it transpires that because of the complete ban in respect of appointment in N.I.T., the case of the petitioner has not been considered and has been turned down.
Further the resolution of the N.I.T. which is dated 27.07.2002 clearly mentions that no non-teaching posts to be filled even if the vacancies exist. This being a situation it cannot be said that the decision not to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground taken by the Board of Governors, N.I.T. is incorrect. The order impugn i.e. dated 14.11.2003 in the writ application is merely a communication and the real decision has been brought on record which is the resolution of the 3rd Board of Governors meeting held on 27th September, 2003, thus the decision is not a non-speaking order.
Further the decision as relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case as because there is material on record in the instant case to show that there is a complete ban of appointment of non-teaching staffs. In the L.P.A. No. 595 of 2004 Kanak Kumari (Supra), there was no material on record to suggest that there was a complete ban of appointment/recruitment of the non-teaching employee. Thus, order was passed in L.P.A. No. 595 of 2004, is of no help to the petitioner and is distinguishable.
In view of the observations made above, there is no ground for interfering with the impugned order.
The writ application, thus is hereby dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment amount to a non-speaking order warranting judicial interference.
Whether the petitioner can rely on the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Bhagat where there was no complete ban on non-teaching appointments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jitendra Kumar Bhagat @ Jitendra Nath Bhagat & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.Distinguished¶12
2006(2)JLR 395
Kanak Kumari Vs. National Institute of Technology, JamshedpurDistinguished¶12
LPA No. 595 of 2004 (Kanak Kumari Vs. National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur)
Sudhir Kumar Sinha
The National Institute of Technology through its Board of governors, Jamshedpur
The Director, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur
The Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur
ANANDA SEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
