JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Having heard the learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Murthy,
the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, and having regard to
the fact that the petitioner had not
questioned the order of removal from service,
we are of the opinion that the question of
issuing a direction by this Court upon the
respondents to grant pension on
compassionate grounds does not arise. We
are also of the opinion that no relief can be
granted only on sympathy and on
humanitarian grounds, which is contrary to
law. This aspect of the matter has been
considered in Ashok Saha v. State of West
Bengal, Cal.LT 1999 (2) 1, wherein it
was held:
"14. The said decision therefore, is also
distinguishable on facts. On the other
hand there are series of decisions wherein
the Supreme Court has clearly laid down
the law that a pupil who is not entitled to
appear in the examination should not be
allowed to do so in violation of the
statutory regulation. Reference in this
connection, may be made to A.P.
Christian Medical Educational Society
v. Government of A.P. reported in 1986
(2.)SCC 677 = State ofT.N. v. St. Joseph
Teachers' Training Institute reported in
1991 (3) SCC 37; State of Maharashtra
v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale reported in
1992 (4) SCC 435; Central Board of
Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati
reported in 1998 (3) SCC 5; Central
Board of Secondary Education v. Sunil,
1997 (1) CLJ 143, a Division Bench of
this Court was considering a matter
relating to the right of a person to take
admission and not with the question
raised therein. In this jurisdiction also a
Division Bench of this Court in Central
Board of Secondary Education and others
v. Adarsh Kumar Sedhwarayar and
others, reported in 1998 (2) CHN 61
upon considering the aforementioned
decision as also the decision of the Apex
Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v.
Parminder Kumar Bansal and another,
reported in 1993 (4) SCC 401 = AIR
1993 SC 2412 as also other decisions
held:-
'It is beyond any dispute that the said
Park Point School was not affiliated with
the appellant. The writ petitioner might
have taken admission under a
misconception but it is beyond any cavil
of doubt that unless the statute permits
appearance of students as private
candidates they cannot be permitted to
do so.'
15. The Bench further noticed
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and
another, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2148,
the law has been laid down in the
following terms:
1.Thus apart from the directions as to
appointment on compassionate grounds
being against statutory provisions, such
direction does not take note of this fact.
Whatever it may be the Court should not
have directed the appointment on
compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction
under mandamus cannot be exercised
in that fashion."
2. In G. Kalyan Sundaram v. UCO
Bank and another, Cal.LT 1995 (2) HC
201, one of us (S.B. Sinha, CJ.) had observed
that in the fact of that case even sympathy
has no role to play.
(3.)In Latham v. Richard Johnson
and Nephew Limited, 1911-13 AER (Reprint)
117, Farwell LJ observed
'We must be careful not to allow our
sympathy with the infant plaintiff to
affect our judgment. Sentiment is a
dangerous will o' the wisp to take as a
guide in the search for legal principles."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.