The Allahabad High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Special Appeal No. 367 of 2024), reiterating the principle that appointments made on compassionate grounds cannot be sustained if obtained by concealing material facts. The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.
Case Background
The case revolved around Shiv Dutt Sharma, who was initially appointed on compassionate grounds as a Chowkidar in 1981 following his father’s demise. Subsequently, he secured admission to a B.Ed. program with departmental permission. In 1986, Sharma was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, allegedly based on the qualifications he acquired during this period.
The controversy arose shortly before his retirement in 2019 when allegations surfaced that he had concealed his earlier appointment as a Chowkidar to obtain the Assistant Teacher position. The District Basic Education Officer (DBEO), Bulandshahar, issued a notice to Sharma, demanding explanations for his alleged misrepresentation.
Following an inquiry, the DBEO found that the appellant had suppressed material facts about his initial appointment and canceled his subsequent appointment as an Assistant Teacher in March 2019. Aggrieved, Sharma challenged the cancellation in a writ petition, which was dismissed. He then filed the present appeal before the Division Bench.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Concealment of Material Facts: Whether the concealment of facts related to the petitioner’s initial appointment on compassionate grounds invalidated his subsequent appointment as an Assistant Teacher.
2. Equity in Compassionate Appointments: Whether Sharma’s actions violated the purpose and fairness of compassionate appointments, which are intended as a welfare measure.
3. Administrative Procedure: The validity of the inquiry conducted by the DBEO and whether due process was followed.
Key Observations of the Court
Delivering the judgment, Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed:
“Appointments made on compassionate grounds are exceptions to the general rule and must adhere strictly to procedural fairness. Any concealment of material facts vitiates the legitimacy of such appointments.”
The court emphasized that compassionate appointments aim to provide immediate relief to families in distress and are not a means for career progression. It held that the appellant’s suppression of his initial appointment violated this fundamental objective, making his subsequent appointment unsustainable.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the DBEO’s decision to cancel Sharma’s appointment. The court affirmed that:
1. The appellant’s conduct amounted to misrepresentation, which rendered his appointment as an Assistant Teacher void.
2. The inquiry process adhered to principles of natural justice, as Sharma was given opportunities to respond to the allegations.
Representation
The appellant was represented by Senior Counsel R.K. Ojha, assisted by Advocate Rajesh Kumar Mishra. The respondents were represented by Standing Counsel Tej Bhanu Pandey and Advocate Yatindra.
