Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8/4/2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the respondent/Company has declined his request for compassionate appointment on the ground that petitioner has failed to acquire CPCT qualification. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondents to grant him compassionate appointment as per Policy of 2016.

7. The respondent/Company however insisted for acquisition of CPCT qualification. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Company for grant of additional time to enable him to acquire CPCT qualification vide letter dated 12/3/2019. Accordingly vide letter dated 14/10/2019, the respondent/ Company extended time for a period of one year w.e.f. 26/4/2019.

8. It appears that petitioner could not acquire the CPCT qualification and accordingly, vide letter dated 8/4/2021, his request for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of his failure to obtain CPCT qualification. The petitioner is thus before this Court challenging the aforesaid communication.

10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that merely because the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer, no right is accrued in favour of petitioner so long as he is not appointed on the post. It is his submission that the compassionate appointment is not a right of a candidate rather it is only a compassion being shown to him and, therefore, he cannot claim relaxation in the matter of qualification. He also submitted that for appointment on compassionate ground, a candidate is required to possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed for the post. Thus, the additional qualification of CPCT is necessary for appointment on the post in question. The learned counsel further submitted that no exemption can be granted to a candidate in the matter of educational qualification. He thus, submitted that the action of respondents in rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of his failure to acquire CPCT qualification is legal and valid and does not warrant any interference of this Court.

14. The learned counsel for the Company argued that the petitioner himself accepted the change in qualification and asked for additional time to acquire CPCT qualification also. Therefore, he is now stopped from asking for appointment without CPCT qualification. In this regard, it is seen that the petitioner had initially requested for appointment without CPCT vide his letter, dated 27/11/2019. However, when the Company insisted for CPCT, the petitioner asked for additional time. Thus, it is not a case were the petitioner unequivocally and unconditionally accepted the changed condition. It be noted here that the petitioner is not having the same bargaining power vis-a-vis the Company and, therefore, if he has asked for additional time, upon Company's insisting for CPCT, that cannot be accepted to be waiver on his part.