Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SANJAY KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Decided
28 August 2000
Judges listed
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, DORAISWAMY RAJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 710 · 2000 INSC 419
Also cited as
  • (2000) 7 SCC 192 (32 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2000 SC 2782 (5 citing judgments)
  • JT 2000 (10) SC 156 (2 citing judgments)
  • (2000) SCC(L&S) 895 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioner was 10 years old when his mother died, while she was working as a Excise Constable. The petitioner made an application on 2.6.1988, soon after the death of his mother, seeking compassionate appointment. That was rejected on 10.12.1996, as time-barred. A fresh application was filed on 26.12.96 and that was also rejected on 21.4.1997 for the same reason. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.8.99 and the said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench on 10.3.2000. Against order that this SLP has been preferred.

pp. 710–711, margin G

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 PLJR 626. Learned senior counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned senior counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21.4.1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., (1998) 2 PLJR SC 181. He· submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.

p. 711, margin A

We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. supra. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.

p. 711, margin C

We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Chandra Bhushan's case.

p. 711, margin F

For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in this SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

p. 711, margin F