The Supreme Court is set to settle the question around whether qualification obtained after the date of application is required to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.
The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has recently issued notice in the SLP assailing Delhi High Court's order filed by Delhi Jal Board. Staying the impugned order wherein the High Court had held that the qualification which the applicant possessed at the time of consideration of application can be taken into account.
It is the case of the petitioner-Jal Board that the respondent applied for appointment on compassionate ground and on that day she has not completed the Graduation and she acquired the Graduation qualification subsequently. Therefore, the qualification on the date of the application for appointment on compassionate ground to be considered and if it is so in that case, she was not eligible for appointment as LDC.
Brief Fcats of the Case
The Delhi Jal Board had previously approached the High Court assailing the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in which the it had observed that the respondent's daughter 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's daughter 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 comprising of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw & Justice Amit Bansal however dismissed the DJB's writ and 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."
Aggreived the petitioners has now approached the Apex Court.
Read Order Here:
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments