2021 INSC 0609
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6003 OF 2021
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.      ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PREMLATA                                  ..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   14.09.2018   passed   by   the   High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective
(SAD)   No.620   of   2018,   by   which   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High Court has allowed the said appeal and quashed and set
aside   the   judgment   and   order   dated   31.07.2018   passed   by
the   learned   Single   Judge   and   consequently   has   directed   the
appellants – original respondents to consider the candidature
of the respondent herein – original appellant for appointment
on   compassionate   ground   in   Grade­III   service,   the   State   of
U.P. has preferred the present appeal. 
1

2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   in   nutshell   are   as
under:­
2.1 That   the   deceased   employee   at   the   time   of   his   death   was
posted and serving as Messenger in Police Radio Department
of   Uttar   Pradesh   (Class­IV)   died   on   07.11.2014.   The
respondent herein being widow of the deceased – government
servant   submitted   an   application   dated   05.12.2014   for
appointment   on   the   post   of   Assistant   Operator   in   Police
Radio   Department   on   compassionate   ground   which   was
rejected on the ground that she is not fulfilling  the requisite
eligibility   criteria   for   the   said   post.   That   thereafter   the
respondent   submitted   another   application   before   the   U.P.
Police   Radio   Headquarter,   Lucknow   for   appointment   on   the
post   of   Workshop   Hand   on   compassionate   ground.   However
as   she   failed   to   clear   the   physical   fitness   examination
conducted   on   28.01.2018   for   the   selection   of   Workshop
employee,   her   application   for   appointment   as   Workshop
employee on compassionate ground came to be rejected. Due
to   unsuccessful   in   the  physical  eligibility   test   on   the   post  of
Workshop   Hand/Workshop   employee,   vide   letter   dated
2

23.02.2018  of  the  Police  Radio  Headquarter,  U.P.,  Lucknow,
the respondent herein was offered the post below the rank of
Workshop Hand i.e. Messenger in Radio Department. Instead
of   accepting   the   said   post   the   respondent   filed   the   writ
petition   before   the   High   Court   claiming   the   appointment   on
the post of Workshop Hand (Karmshala Karmchari) in Police
Radio Department  under  the provisions  of Dying­In­Harness
Rules   1974   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Rules   1974)   on
compassionate ground and to direct the appellants to appoint
her on the post of Workshop Hand (Karmshala Karmchari) or
the post suitable for her in similar cadre. 
2.2 By the judgment and order dated 31.07.2018, learned Single
Judge   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   said   writ   petition   on
the   ground   that   as   the   deceased   employee   was   Class­IV
employee   and   she   has   also   been   offered   appointment   on   a
Class­IV   post,   she   cannot   claim   the   appointment   on
compassionate   ground   on   the   post  of   Workshop   Hand   or   on
any other suitable Class­III post.
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   the   respondent
3

herein   preferred  the   appeal  before the   Division  Bench  of  the
High   Court   and   by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   set   aside   the   order
passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   has   allowed   the
appeal   and   has   directed   the   appellants   to   consider   the
candidature   of   the   respondent   herein   for   appointment   on
compassionate   ground   in   Grade­III   service   and   same   be
accorded   to   her   if   she   otherwise   does   not   suffer   any
ineligibility.   By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   observed   that   a   bare
perusal   of   Rule   5   of   the   Rules   1974   makes   it   crystal   clear
that   appointment   under   Rule   5   is   required   to   be   given   on   a
“suitable   post”   and   the   term   ‘suitable’   in   Rule   5   pertains   to
suitability   of   the   person   who   desires   for   appointment   and   it
has   nothing   to   do   with   the   post   held   by   the   deceased
government   servant.   The   Division   Bench   also   observed   that
the   suitability   of   the   aspirant   is   required   to   be   assessed   on
the   basis   of   the   educational   qualification   and   other
eligibilities so possessed by such person. The Division Bench
noted   that   in   the   case   in   hand,   respondent   is   having   the
qualification of Bachelors Degree in Arts as well as Bachelors
4

Degree in Education and therefore qualified for  appointment
on a post in Grade­III.
3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court, the State of U.P. and others have preferred the present
appeal.
4. Ms.   Ruchira   Goel,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   appellants   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High Court has misinterpreted the Rule 5 of the Rules 1974
by   observing   that   the   respondent   shall   be   entitled   to
appointment   on   compassionate   ground   on   ‘suitable   post’
considering   the   educational   qualification   and   irrespective   of
the fact that the deceased employee was working on Class­IV
post.   It   is   submitted   that   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   has   not   properly   appreciated   the   fact   that   the
appellant   sought   appointment   on   compassionate   ground
which   cannot   be   equated   with   regular   post/regular
recruitment. 
5

4.1 It is submitted that ‘suitable post’ is required to be linked to
the   object   and   purpose   of   appointment   on   compassionate
ground. 
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   the   object   and   purpose   of   providing   the
appointment   on   compassionate   ground   is   to   meet   out   the
difficulties   created   on   account   of   sudden   death   of   the   sole
bread   earner   and   cannot   be   equated   with   the   regular
recruitment/appointment.   It   is   further   submitted   that
‘suitable   post’   is   to   be   considered   considering   the   post   held
by deceased employee and it cannot be a higher post.
4.3 It   is   submitted   that   ‘suitable   post’   mentioned   in   Rule   5   of
Rules 1974 has to be construed considering  the educational
qualification   of   dependent   vis­à­vis   the   post   held   by   the
deceased employee. 
4.4 It is submitted that in the present case earlier the respondent
applied   for   the   post   of   Sub­Inspector   for   which   the
respondent   was   not   possessing   the   requisite   qualification   of
ITI. It is submitted that even subsequently when she applied
for the appointment on compassionate ground on the post of
Workshop   Hand   she   did   not   clear   the   physical   examination
6

test   which   was   required   to   be   cleared   as   per   Uttar   Pradesh
Radio   Adhinasth   Sewa   Second   Amendment   Niyamawali,
2005.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   respondent   was
offered next lower post i.e. Messenger, which the respondent
refused to accept. 
4.5 It   is   submitted   that   even   as   per   the   Circular   dated
24.11.2015,   only   one   opportunity   was   required   to   be   given
for   appointment   on   any   post   to   the   dependent   of   the
deceased.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   the
respondent failed to avail the opportunity twice. 
4.6 It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has
erred   in   holding   that   the   ‘suitable   post’   under   Rule   5   of   the
Rules   1974,   would   mean   any   post   suitable   to   the
qualification of the candidates.
4.7 Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal.           
  
5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shashank
Singh,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondent.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and
7

circumstances   of   the   case,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court has rightly interpreted Rule 5 of the Rules 1974, would
mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate.
5.1 It is submitted that in the present case the Division Bench of
the High Court has not directed to appoint the respondent as
Workshop   Hand,   but   has   directed   to   consider   the   case   on
any   other   suitable   post   as   Grade­III   looking   to   the
qualification of the respondent. 
5.2 It   is   vehemently   submitted   that   as   such   Circular   dated
24.11.2015, issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, granting only
one   opportunity   for   appointment   on   compassionate   ground
on   any   post   to   the   dependent   of   the   deceased,   and   in   case
such   dependent   fails   to   avail   the   opportunity,   such   person
shall be offered appointment on any other lower rank within
a period of three months shall not be applicable to the facts
of   the   case   on   hand   as   the   respondent   applied   prior   to   the
said circular. It is submitted that therefore the conditions in
the said circular in relation to grant of one opportunity shall
not be applicable to the respondent herein.
8

5.3 It   is   further   submitted   that   while   determining   ‘suitability’
under the provisions of Rules 1974, Rule 5 of the said rules
laying   down   qualification   requirements   ought   to   be   read
harmoniously   with   Rule   8   of   the   Rules   1974   that   the
candidate   ought  to   be  able   to  maintain   minimum  standards
of work and efficiency.
5.4 It is submitted that a hyper­technical approach ought not to
be   adopted   in   cases   of   compassionate   appointments.   It   is
submitted that so far as the compassionate appointments are
concerned   such   appointments   are   exempted   from   the
requirements of ordinary/normal recruitment procedure. 
5.5 It is further submitted that there is no bar for appointment of
a dependent at a higher post than was held by the deceased.
It   is   submitted   that   Rule   5   of   Rules   1974   provides   that   the
appellant may be given a suitable employment in government
service   on   a   post   except   the   post   within   the   purview   of   the
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission in relaxation of he
normal recruitment rules. 
5.6 It   is   submitted   that   even   the   respondent   ought   not   to   be
denied   the   appointment   as   Workshop   Hand   on   the   ground
9

that   the   respondent   failed   to   pass   the   physical   test.   It   is
submitted that the suitability of a post may be determined on
the basis of educational qualification and/or other criteria. It
is submitted  that  it  is  true  that  as  per  the   provisions   of  law
once   a   post   is   accepted   on   account   of   compassionate
appointment,   no   right   may   be   claimed   to   further   or   later
apply for a higher post. It is submitted that however the facts
in   the   present   case   are   peculiar.   The   specialized   post   of
Workshop Hand requires, in addition to requisite educational
qualification,   a   physical   test   also   to   be   passed.   It   is
submitted   that   the   respondent’s   failure   to   pass   the   physical
test   makes   her   ineligible   for   this   particular   post.   However,
the post of Messenger being offered is disproportionate to her
educational qualifications. Therefore, the respondent may be
considered   for   an   alternate   or   suitable   post   within   Grade­III
wherein   such   specific   recruitment   of   the   physical   test   may
not   be   applicable   as   the   down   gradation   of   the   post   would
render her educational qualification futile. 
5.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision
of this court in case of Phoolwati (Smt) vs. Union of India and
10

Others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689, it is requested to
dismiss the present appeal.     
         
6. Heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective   parties   at
length.      
7. The respondent’s husband was serving as Messenger (Class­
IV/Grade­IV   post)   in   Police   Radio   Department.   He   died   on
07.11.2014.   The   respondent­widow   of   the   deceased   –
government servant submitted an application on 05.02.2014
for appointment on the post of Assistant Operator which was
not   considered   as   she   was   not   fulfilling   the   requisite
eligibility criteria required for the post of Assistant Operator.
That thereafter she made an application for the appointment
on   compassionate   ground   on   the   post   of   Workshop   Hand
which is a Grade­III post on 19.02.2015. She was granted the
opportunity for appointment on said post, however, she could
not   pass   the   physical   eligibility   test   conducted   for   the   said
post   and   thereby   as   a   result   of   her   failure   in   physical
eligibility  test, she  could not  be  granted  the appointment on
the   post   of   Workshop   Hand   on   compassionate   ground.   Still
by   order   dated   23.02.2018,   the   respondent   was   offered   the
11

post   below   the   rank   of   Workshop   Hand   i.e.   Messenger   in
Radio   Department,   which   she   refused   and   the   respondent
insisted   that   she   must   be   appointed   on   the   compassionate
ground   on   the   post   of   Workshop   Hand   or  equivalent   post   of
Grade­III   looking   to   her   educational   qualification.   The
learned   Single   Judge   dismissed   the   writ   petition.   However,
the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and order has
directed   to   consider   the   case   of   the   respondent   for
appointment   on   compassionate   ground   on   the   post   of
Workshop Hand or any equivalent post in Grade­III looking to
her   qualification   and   on   interpretation   of   Rule   5   that   the
‘suitable   post’   under   Rule   5   of   the   Dying­in­Harness   Rules
1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the
candidate.   The   aforesaid   is   the   subject   matter   of   appeal
before this court. 
8. While   considering   the   issue   involved   in   the   present   appeal,
the law laid down by this court on compassionate ground on
the   death   of   the   deceased   employee   are   required   to   be
referred   to   and   considered.   In   the   recent   decision   this   court
in Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021 in the case of the Director of
12

Treasuries   in   Karnataka   &   Anr.   vs.   V.   Somashree,   had
occasion   to   consider   the   principle   governing   the   grant   of
appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the
decision of this court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka
and   Ors.   reported   in   (2020)   7   SCC   617,   this   Court   has
summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment
on compassionate ground as under:­
(i)  that   the   compassionate   appointment   is   an
exception to the general rule;
(ii)   that       no       aspirant       has       a       right       to
compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service
of   the       State       has       to       be       made       on       the
basis       of       the   principle   in   accordance   with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv)  appointment   on   compassionate   ground   can
be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by
the   State’s   policy   and/or   satisfaction   of   the
eligibility criteria as per the policy; 
(v)  the   norms   prevailing   on   the   date   of   the
consideration   of   the   application   should   be   the
basis   for       consideration       of       claim       for
compassionate appointment.    
9. As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions
on   the   appointment   on   compassionate   ground,   for   all   the
government   vacancies   equal   opportunity   should   be   provided
to all aspirants as mandated under  Article 14 and  16 of the
Constitution.   However,   appointment   on   compassionate
13

ground   offered   to   a  dependent  of   a  deceased   employee  is  an
exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a
concession and not a right. 
9.1 In   the   case   of   State   of   Himachal   Pradesh   and   Anr.   vs.
Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this court had
an   occasion   to   consider   the   object   and   purpose   of
appointment   on   compassionate   ground   and   considered
decision   of   this   court   in   case   of   Govind   Prakash   Verma   vs.
LIC reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in para 21 and 26, it is
observed and held as under:­
“21.   The   decision   in   Govind   Prakash   Verma   [ Govind
Prakash   Verma   v.   LIC ,   (2005)   10   SCC   289,   has   been
considered   subsequently   in   several   decisions.   But,
before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to
note   that   the   nature   of   compassionate   appointment
had   been   considered   by   this   Court   in   Umesh   Kumar
Nagpal   v.   State   of   Haryana   [ Umesh   Kumar
Nagpal   v.   State of Haryana , (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994
SCC (L&S) 930] . The principles which have been laid
down   in   Umesh   Kumar   Nagpal   [ Umesh   Kumar
Nagpal   v.   State of Haryana , (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994
SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a
consistent   line   of   precedents   in   this   Court.   These
principles   are   encapsulated   in   the   following   extract:
( Umesh   Kumar   Nagpal   case   [ Umesh   Kumar
Nagpal   v.   State of Haryana , (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994
SCC (L&S) 930] , SCC pp. 139­40, para 2)
“ 2 .   …   As   a   rule,   appointments   in   the
public  services  should  be  made strictly  on  the
14

basis   of   open   invitation   of   applications   and
merit.   No   other   mode   of   appointment   nor   any
other   consideration   is  permissible.   Neither   the
Governments   nor   the   public   authorities   are   at
liberty   to   follow   any   other   procedure   or   relax
the qualifications laid down by the rules for the
post. However, to this general  rule which  is to
be   followed   strictly   in   every   case,   there   are
some   exceptions   carved   out   in   the   interests   of
justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
such   exception   is   in   favour   of   the   dependants
of   an   employee   dying   in   harness   and   leaving
his family in penury and without any means of
livelihood.   In   such   cases,   out   of   pure
humanitarian   consideration   taking   into
consideration the fact that unless some source
of   livelihood   is   provided,   the   family   would   not
be able to make both ends meet, a provision is
made   in   the   rules   to   provide   gainful
employment   to   one   of   the   dependants   of   the
deceased   who   may   be   eligible   for   such
employment.   The   whole   object   of   granting
compassionate   employment   is   thus   to   enable
the   family   to   tide   over   the   sudden   crisis.   The
object is not to give a member of such family a
post   much   less   a   post   for   post   held   by   the
deceased.   What   is   further,   mere   death   of   an
employee in harness does not entitle his family
to   such   source   of   livelihood.   The   Government
or   the   public   authority   concerned   has   to
examine the financial condition of the family of
the   deceased,   and   it   is   only   if   it   is   satisfied,
that   but   for   the   provision   of   employment,   the
family will not be able to meet the crisis that a
job is to be offered to the eligible member of the
family.  The posts in  Classes  III  and IV are the
lowest   posts   in   non­manual   and   manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered
on compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve   the   family,   of   the   financial   destitution
and   to   help   it   get   over   the   emergency.   The
15

provision   of   employment   in   such   lowest   posts
by   making   an   exception   to   the   rule   is
justifiable   and   valid   since   it   is   not
discriminatory. The favourable treatment given
to such dependant of the deceased employee in
such posts has a rational nexus with the object
sought   to   be   achieved   viz.   relief   against
destitution.   No   other   posts   are   expected   or
required   to   be   given   by   the   public   authorities
for the purpose. It must be remembered in this
connection that as against the destitute family
of   the   deceased   there   are   millions   of   other
families   which   are   equally,   if   not   more
destitute.   The   exception   to   the   rule   made   in
favour   of   the   family   of   the   deceased   employee
is  in  consideration  of  the  services  rendered  by
him   and   the   legitimate   expectations,   and   the
change  in   the   status   and   affairs,  of  the   family
engendered   by   the   erstwhile   employment
which are suddenly upturned.”
“26.   The   judgment   of   a   Bench   of   two   Judges
in   Mumtaz   Yunus   Mulani   v.   State   of
Maharashtra   [ Mumtaz   Yunus   Mulani   v.   State   of
Maharashtra ,   (2008)   11   SCC   384   :   (2008)   2   SCC
(L&S)   1077]   has   adopted   the   principle   that
appointment   on   compassionate   grounds   is   not   a
source   of   recruitment,   but   a   means   to   enable   the
family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial
crisis. The financial position of the family would need
to   be   evaluated   on   the   basis   of   the   provisions
contained   in   the   scheme.   The   decision   in   Govind
Prakash Verma   [ Govind Prakash Verma   v.   LIC , (2005)
10   SCC   289   :   2005   SCC   (L&S)   590]   has   been   duly
considered,   but   the   Court   observed   that   it   did   not
appear   that   the   earlier   binding   precedents   of   this
Court have been taken note of in that case.”
10. Thus as per the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid
decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the
16

general   rule   of   appointment   in   the   public   services   and   is   in
favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and
leaving   his   family   in   penury   and   without   any   means   of
livelihood,   and   in   such   cases,   out   of   pure   humanitarian
consideration   taking   into   consideration   the   fact   that   unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be
able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules
to   provide   gainful   employment   to   one   of   the   dependants   of
the  deceased who  may  be eligible for  such  employment. The
whole   object   of   granting   compassionate   employment   is   thus
to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object
is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the
deceased.
10.1 Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   court   in   the   aforesaid
decisions   and   considering   the   observations   made
hereinabove   and   the   object   and   purpose   for   which   the
appointment   on   compassionate   ground   is   provided,   the
submissions   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   and   the
interpretation   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   on
Rule 5 of Rules 1974, is required to be considered. 
17

10.2 The Division Bench of the High Court in the present case has
interpreted Rule 5 of Rules 1974 and has held that ‘suitable
post’   under   Rule   5   of   the   Rules   1974   would   mean   any   post
suitable   to   the   qualification   of   the   candidate   irrespective   of
the   post   held   by   the   deceased   employee.   The   aforesaid
interpretation by the Division Bench of the High Court is just
opposite   to   the   object   and   purpose   of   granting   the
appointment on compassionate ground. ‘Suitable post’ has to
be considered, considering status/post held by the deceased
employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria
is required to be considered, considering the post held by the
deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required
to   be   considered   vis   a   vis   the   post   held   by   the   deceased
employee,   otherwise   there   shall   be   no   difference/distinction
between   the   appointment   on   compassionate   ground  and  the
regular appointment. In a given case it may happen that the
dependent   of   the   deceased   employee   who   has   applied   for
appointment   on   compassionate   ground   is   having   the
educational   qualification   of   Class­II   or   Class­I   post   and   the
deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade­
18

IV   and/or   lower   than   the   post   applied,   in   that   case   the
dependent/applicant   cannot   seek   the   appointment   on
compassionate   ground   on   the   higher   post   than   what   was
held   by   the   deceased   employee   as   a   matter   of   right,   on   the
ground   that   he/she   is   eligible   fulfilling   the   eligibility   criteria
of   such   higher   post.   The   aforesaid   shall   be   contrary   to   the
object   and   purpose   of   grant   of   appointment   on
compassionate   ground   which   as   observed   hereinabove   is   to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death
of   the   bread   earner.   As   observed   above,   appointment   on
compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian
consideration   taking   into   consideration   the   fact   that   some
source   of   livelihood   is   provided   and   family   would   be   able   to
make both ends meet.         
 
10.3 In   the   present   case   as   observed   hereinabove   initially   the
respondent   applied   for   appointment   on   compassionate
ground   on   the   post   of   Assistant   Operator   in   Police   Radio
Department. The same was not accepted by  the Department
and   rightly   not   accepted   on   the   ground   that   she   was   not
fulfilling   requisite   eligibility   criteria   for   the   post   of   Assistant
19

Operator.   Thereafter   the   respondent   again   applied   for
appointment   on   the   compassionate   ground   on   the   post   of
Workshop Hand. The case of the respondent was considered,
however,   she   failed   in   the   physical   test   examination,   which
was   required   as   per   the   relevant   recruitment   rules   of   2005.
Therefore,   thereafter   she   was   offered   appointment   on
compassionate ground as Messenger which was equivalent to
the post held by the deceased employee. Therefore appellants
were   justified   in   offering   the   appointment   to   the   respondent
on   the   post   of   Messenger.   However,   the   respondent   refused
the appointment on such post.      
11. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   misinterpreted   and
misconstrued Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 and in observing and
holding that the ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Dying­In­
Harness   Rules   1974   would   mean   any   post   suitable   to   the
qualification   of   the   candidate   and   the   appointment   on
compassionate   ground   is   to   be   offered   considering   the
educational   qualification   of   the   dependent.   As   observed
hereinabove   such   an   interpretation   would   defeat   the   object
20

and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. 
12. In   view   of   the   above   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   present
appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 14.09.2018 in
Special   Appeal   Defective   (SAD)   No.620   of   2018   is   hereby
quashed   and   set   aside.   Consequently   the   writ   petition
preferred by   the  respondent  before  the  learned  Single  Judge
being   Writ   Petition   No.16009   of   2018   stands   dismissed   and
the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated
31.07.2018 dismissing the writ stands restored. No costs.
…………………………………J.
         (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A. S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, 
October 05, 2021.
21