# Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 179
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15450 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53102
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

C.S.C., Gaurav Bishan
.................................
Compassionate Ground Appointment-claim
for appointment as Assistant Teacher on
compassionate grounds on the footing of the
Government
Orders

-Compassionate
appointments to be achieved by merit and not
acquired by inheritance-conversion of such
appointments into a source of recruitment is
unconstitutional-compassionate
ground
appointments is not promotion of employee
welfare- Government Orders dated 04.09.2000
and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to
appointment on the posts of teachers on
compassionate grounds -held to be ultra vires
Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of
India.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 119,160. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
attempt to resile or seek change in its
computation
would
clearly
be
impermissible."

29. In view of whatever has been
said above, there is no force in these
petitions. All the petitions fail and are
dismissed.

30.
The
interim
orders,
in
whichever petitions passed, shall stand
vacated.

31. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 179
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 15450 of 2024

Shailendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Devesh Kumar Giri, Som Veer

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Bishan
.................................
Compassionate Ground Appointment-claim
for appointment as Assistant Teacher on
compassionate grounds on the footing of the
Government
Orders

-Compassionate
appointments to be achieved by merit and not
acquired by inheritance-conversion of such
appointments into a source of recruitment is
unconstitutional-compassionate
ground
appointments is not promotion of employee
welfare- Government Orders dated 04.09.2000
and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to
appointment on the posts of teachers on
compassionate grounds -held to be ultra vires
Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of
India.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har., (1994) 4
SCC 138

2.
Director of
Education
(Secondary)
Vs
Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192

3. Shiv Kumar Dubey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.2014 SCC OnLine All 16214

4. Ashish Yadav Vs Managing Director, U.P.
St. Road Transport Corporation and 2
others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 1266

5. Ipsita Chakrabarti Vs St. of W.B., (2018)
2 CAL LT 177 (HC)

6. N.C. Santhosh Vs St. of Karn. & ors.,
(2020) 7 SCC 617

7. Director of Treasuries in Karn. & anr.Vs
Somyashree, (2021) 12 SCC 20

8. St. of Har. & anr.Vs Ankur Gupta (2003)
7 SCC 704

9. Tinku Vs St. of Har. & ors., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3292

10. Canara Bank Vs Ajitkumar G.K., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 290

11. Special Appeal Defective No.620 of
2018

12. St. of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs Premlata,
(2022) 1 SCC 30

13. Deepanshu Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (Writ-A
No.10832 of 2022)

14. Rajiv Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2019 (4)
ADJ 316

15. Society for Unaided Private Schools of
Rajasthan Vs U.O.I. & anr., (2012) 6 SCC 1
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(2008) 6 SCC 1

17. Smt. Rekha Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.25993 of 2024

18. Avinash Nagra Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti & ors.(1997) 2 SCC 534

19. Susmita Basu & ors. Vs Ballygunge Siksha
Samity & ors., (2006) 7 SCC 680

20. St. of Maharashtra Vs Vikas Sahebrao
Roundale & ors., (1992) 4 SCC 435

21. Ram Sharan Maurya & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2021) 15 SCC 401

22. Devesh Sharma Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2023) 18
SCC 339

23. Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal
Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College Vs National
Council for Teachers' Education & ors., (2012)
2 SCC 16

24. Modern Dental College & Research Centre
& ors. Vs St. of M.P. & ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353

25. St. of Gujarat Vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat & ors., (2005) 8 SCC 534

26. Vijay Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2004 SCC OnLine All 1656

27. Government of Andhra Pradesh, General
Administration, Department, Hyderabad, & ors.
Vs D. Gopaiah & ors., 2002 (2) L.L.N. 484

28. National Institute of Technology & ors. Vs
Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481

29. Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat
(Magadh Division) Vs St. of Bihar & ors.,
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18983 of 2023

30. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey Vs District Inspector
of Schools, Etawah & ors., 1998 SCC OnLine All
292 (Distinguished)

31. Motor General Traders & anr.Vs St. of
Andhra Pradesh & ors., (1984) 1 SCC 222

32. Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & ors. Vs St. of
Mah. & anr., (1998) 2 SCC 1

33. Joseph Shine Vs U.O.I., (2019) 3 SCC 39

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The judgment is being structured
in the following conceptual framework to
facilitate the discussion:

I
Introduction

I(A)
Relief Sought

I(B)
Issues
arising
for
consideration
II
Submissions from the Bar
III
Constitution and Appointments to Government
Post/Services
IV
Appointments on compassionate grounds

IV(A)
General
Principles

IV(B)
Case Laws
V
Statutory/Legal
Framework
V(A)
Rule 5 of the
Dying
in
Harness Rules,
1999 : Scope

V(B)
Government
Orders
dated
04.09.2000
&
15.02.2013
VI
Constitutional and Statutory Setting

VI(A)
Children:
Constitutional
Rights, Duty of
State and Role
of Courts

VI(B)
Article 21A of
the
Constitution of
India
&
the
Right
of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education Act,
2009

VI(C)
Role
of
Teachers

VI(D)
Teachers
and
realization
of
Article 21A of
the
Constitution of
India
VII
Interplay
of
Constitutional
Law,
Statutory
Provisions and Government Orders

VII(A)
Article 21A of
4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
181
the
Constitution of
India, the Right
of Children to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education Act,
2009 and the
Government
Orders
dated
04.09.2000 and
15.02.2013

VII(B)
Competing
claims
for
appointment as
teachers
on
compassionate
grounds
and
rights
of
children
to
education

VII(C)
Rule 5 of the
Dying
in
Harness Rules,
1999,
Government
Orders
dated
04.09.2000 and
15.02.2013 and
Articles 14 and
16
of
the
Constitution of
India

VIII

VIII(A)
Abuse
of
Compassionate
Appointments

VIII(B)
Sanjeev Kumar
Dubey
v.
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Etawah1:
Relevance

VIII(C)
Suo
moto
consideration
of
vires
by
Courts
IX
Conclusions
and
Directions

X
Appendix

I. Introduction :

(A). Relief Sought:

2. The prayer made in the instant
writ
petition
is
to
mandamus
the
respondents to appoint the petitioner as
Assistant
Teacher
on
compassionate
grounds. The claim for appointment as
Assistant
Teacher
on
compassionate
grounds has been made by the petitioner on
the footing of the Government Orders dated
04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013.

3. The same prayer has been made
in the companion writ petitions. All the
writ petitions are being decided together
since common questions of law arise for
consideration therein.

I(B).
The
issues
arising
for
consideration:

4. The following questions arise for
consideration:

A)
Whether
the
prayer
of
mandamus for appointing the petitioner as
a teacher on the footing of the Government
Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013
will enforce the Constitution and law or
will be in the teeth of the same?

B)
Whether
the
aforesaid
Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and
15.02.2013 are in consonance with Articles
14, 16 of the Constitution of India and the
fundamental right to education vested in
children by virtue of Article 21A of the
Constitution of India and the rights
conferred upon children by the Right of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Right to Education Act, 2009)?

C) Whether the Government
Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013
are consistent with the Rule 5 of the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
(Fifth
Amendment)
Rules,
1999
(hereinafter referred to as 'Dying in
Harness Rules, 1999'2)?
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
II. Submissions from the Bar:

5. Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned
counsel, Shri Som Veer, learned counsel,
Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel, and
Shri Aditya Yadav, learned counsel for the
respective petitioners have made the
following submissions:

(I) The petitioner is entitled for
appointment as Assistant Teacher in a
Primary School on compassionate grounds
in light of the Government Orders dated
04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013.

(II) The aforesaid Government
Orders
relate
to
compassionate
appointments which are an exception to the
general mode of appointments to public
posts. Hence the Government Orders dated
04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 are not liable to
examination on the touchstone of Articles
14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of
India.

(III) In the alternative, the said
Government Orders are not violative of
Articles
14,
16
and
21-A
of
the
Constitution of India, and do not transgress
the provisions of Rule 5 of the Dying in
Harness Rules, 1999.

(IV) The petitioner possesses
minimum
eligibility
qualifications
for
appointment as Assistant Teacher on
compassionate grounds under the said
Government Orders. A mandamus is liable
to be issued to implement the rights of
petitioner under the said Government
Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013.

6. Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned
Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri
Subhranshu Shekhar, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the respondentState have made the following submissions:

 (i) The rules of appointment on
compassionate grounds are made only for
the welfare of employees and are an
exception
to
the
general
mode
of
appointment
to
public
post.
The
Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and
15.02.2013 are not amenable for testing on
the
anvil
of
Article
21-A
of
the
Constitution.

(ii) In the alternative, it is
submitted that the said Government Orders
do not contravene the provisions of Articles
14, 16 and Article 21-A of the Constitution.

 (iii) The said Government Orders
only supplement the scheme of Rule 5 of
the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999 and the
two provisions can be harmoniously
implemented.

(iv).
Competitive
merit
of
candidates is not examined in the process
of making appointments on compassionate
grounds. However, all candidates have to
possess
the
minimum
eligibility
qualifications. Satisfaction of eligibility
criteria itself is an index of merit. No
further exercise to determine the merit is
required in cases of appointment on
compassionate grounds.

(v) The case of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds is
liable to be determined in the first instance
in particular facts of each case by the
competent authority as per the Government
Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013.

7. The above arguments have been
adopted by Shri Ajeet Singh, learned
counsel, Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned
counsel, Shri Gaurav Bishan, learned
counsel, Shri Krishna Kumar Chand,
learned counsel, Shri Devesh Vikram,
learned
counsel,
for
the
respective
respondent-Basic Shiksha Adhikaris.
4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
183
8. Shri Kunal Shah, learned amicus
curiae and Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned
amicus curiae have made the following
submissions:

(a) The Government Orders dated
04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 are liable to
stand the test of Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of
the Constitution against the same for their
validity.

(b) The Government Orders dated
04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 violate Articles
14, 16 and the fundamental right to
education vested in children under Article
21-A of the Constitution of India, and the
statutory rights conferred upon children
under the Right to Education Act, 2009.

(c). The procedure adopted for
appointment of teachers on compassionate
grounds under the Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 does not
test merits of the candidate.

(d). The right of children to
quality education can only be realized if
most meritorious candidates from open
market are appointed as teachers.

(e). The Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 are
incompatible with Rule 5 of the Dying in
Harness Rules, 1999.

(f). The Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 are ultra
vires Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the
Constitution.

III. Constitution and Appointments
to Government Post/Services:

9.
The
Constitution
of
India
contains
copious
provisions
for
appointment to government posts/services.
Some of the provisions which can be
referenced
are:
Article
14
of
the
Constitution is the equality clause in the
Constitution, Article 15 of the Constitution
proscribes
discrimination
and
enables
special
provisions
for
socially
and
economically
backward
classes
and
scheduled castes. Article 16 of the
Constitution provides for the recruitment
to posts in government services and
enables reservations for certain classes
including SCs, STs and OBCs. Article
309 of the Constitution vests the State
with powers to frame service Rules.

10. Constitutional law renderings
of the aforesaid provisions hold that the
recruitment to government services and
posts
should
be
made
through
a
transparent
and
open
process.
Recruitment
processes
under
the
Constitution
for
appointment
to
government posts prise out the best talent
to serve the country by enabling widest
possible participation of eligible citizens,
and selection based on competitive merit.
The
Constitutional
scheme
ensures
equality in opportunity to participate in
the
selection
process,
provides
for
representation of various categories of
backward classes and scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes in government
services, and maintains the ascendancy of
merit in appointments.

11.
Appointments
made
in
pursuance of said recruitment processes
ensure an efficient administration which
is leavened with social justice and solely
geared to service of the citizenry. The
recruitment
processes
undertaken
in
adherence to Constitutional norms aid the
transition
of
a
nation
riven
with
disparities to a republic defined by an
egalitarian order.

IV.
Appointments
on
compassionate grounds:

(A). General Principles:
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. The process of appointments on
compassionate grounds is a departure and
an exception to the public process of
appointments
as
stipulated
in
the
Constitution. Compassionate appointments
reflect the commitment of the State as a
model employer to the welfare of its
employees.

13.
The
sole
purpose
of
compassionate ground appointments is to
provide immediate financial succour to a
family
of
the
deceased
government
employee which faces sudden financial
destitution after the death of the earning
member.
The
compassionate
ground
appointments are not intended to confer
lasting social status. The appointments on
compassionate grounds have passed the test
of constitutionality by a slender margin and
on the above grounds alone.

14.
Appointments
on
compassionate grounds give a sheltered
entry to the dependants of a deceased
employee into government service without
the rigors of an open selection procedure.
The competitive merit of candidates is of
no relevance since the appointments are
made without adopting the public selection
procedure. Norms of recruitment are
completely relaxed for appointment on
compassionate grounds. However the law
requires the applicants to possess minimum
qualifications for the posts.

15.
Considering
the
aforesaid
limitations
of
compassionate
ground
appointments, it has been held by good
authority that there is no vested right to an
appointment on compassionate grounds.
Further, the right to compassionate ground
appointment is derived only from specific
provisions in this regard and the same have
to be strictly adhered to. An unduly liberal
view while interpreting the aforesaid rules
may make the appointments vulnerable to
reproach by the equality clause of the
Constitution.

16. Unlimited appointments on
compassionate
grounds
made
without
examination of relevant factors as per law
or in the teeth of holdings of Constitutional
Courts in point will "shear the cloak of
legality" from these appointments and will
reduce the said appointments to a class of
hereditary
appointments.
Under
the
constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16
of
the
Constitution
appointments
to
government posts have to be achieved by
merit and not acquired by inheritance.
Constitutional
law
holdings
have
disapproved conversion of compassionate
appointments into a source of recruitment.

IV(B). Case Laws:

17. The narrative has the benefit of
cases in point. The purpose of appointment
on compassionate grounds was explained
by the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal
v.
State
of
Haryana3.
Jurisprudential rationale laid down in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) is the
locus classicus which provides the sole
rationale for compassionate appointments:

"2. The question relates to the
considerations which should guide while
giving appointment in public services on
compassionate ground. It appears that there
has been a good deal of obfuscation on the
issue. As a rule, appointments in the public
services should be made strictly on the
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
4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185
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
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."

18. The same propositions were
expounded by the Supreme Court in
Director of Education (Secondary) v.
Pushpendra Kumar4:

 "8. The object underlying a
provision for grant of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the sudden
crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury
and without any means of livelihood. Out
of pure humanitarian consideration and
having regard to 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 for giving gainful
appointment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Such a provision makes a
departure from the general provisions
providing for appointment on the post by
following a particular procedure. Since
such a provision enables appointment being
made without following the said procedure,
it is in the nature of an exception to the
general provisions. An exception cannot
subsume the main provision to which it is
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an exception and thereby nullify the main
provision by taking away completely the
right conferred by the main provision. Care
has, therefore, to be taken that a provision
for grant of compassionate employment,
which is in the nature of an exception to the
general
provisions,
does
not
unduly
interfere with the right of other persons
who are eligible for appointment to seek
employment against the post which would
have been available to them, but for the
provision
enabling
appointment
being
made on compassionate grounds of the
dependant of a deceased employee......"

19. A Full Bench of this Court in
Shiv Kumar Dubey and others v. State of
U.P. and others5 set forth the law as
under:

"31.
We
now
proceed
to
formulate the principles which must
govern compassionate appointment in
pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules:

(i)
A
provision
for
compassionate
appointment
is
an
exception to the principle that there must
be an equality of opportunity in matters
of public employment. The exception to
be constitutionally valid has to be
carefully structured and implemented in
order
to
confine
compassionate
appointment to only those situations
which subserve the basic object and
purpose which is sought to be achieved;

(ii) There is no general or vested
right
to
compassionate
appointment.
Compassionate
appointment
can
be
claimed only where a scheme or rules
provide for such appointment. Where
such
a
provision
is
made
in
an
administrative scheme or statutory rules,
compassionate appointment must fall
strictly within the scheme or, as the case
may be, the rules;
 (iii) The object and purpose of
providing compassionate appointment is to
enable the dependent members of the
family of a deceased employee to tide over
the immediate financial crisis caused by the
death of the bread-earner;

(iv) In determining as to whether
the family is in financial crisis, all relevant
aspects must be borne in mind including
the income of the family; its liabilities, the
terminal benefits received by the family;
the age, dependency and marital status of
its members, together with the income from
any other sources of employment;

(v) Where a long lapse of time
has occurred since the date of death of the
deceased
employee,
the
sense
of
immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and this
would be a relevant circumstance which
must weigh with the authorities in
determining as to whether a case for the
grant of compassionate appointment has
been made out;

(vi)
Rule
5
mandates
that
ordinarily,
an
application
for
compassionate appointment must be made
within five years of the date of death of the
deceased employee. The power conferred
by the first proviso is a discretion to relax
the period in a case of undue hardship and
for dealing with the case in a just and
equitable manner;

(vii) The burden lies on the
applicant, where there is a delay in making
an application within the period of five
years to establish a case on the basis of
reasons and a justification supported by
documentary and other evidence. It is for
the State Government after considering all
the facts to take an appropriate decision.
The power to relax is in the nature of an
exception and is conditioned by the
existence of objective considerations to the
satisfaction of the government;
4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
187

(viii) Provisions for the grant of
compassionate
appointment
do
not
constitute a reservation of a post in favour
of a member of the family of the deceased
employee. Hence, there is no general right
which can be asserted to the effect that a
member of the family who was a minor at
the time of death would be entitled to claim
compassionate appointment upon attaining
majority. Where the rules provide for a
period of time within which an application
has to be made, the operation of the rule is
not suspended during the minority of a
member of the family."

20. This Court in Ashish Yadav v.
Managing Director, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and 2 others6
discussing the purpose of compassionate
appointment held as under:

 "10. .....The sole justification to
make compassionate ground appointments
is that the dependants of the deceased
employee
face
unforeseen
financial
destitution after the death of the latter and
need
urgent
succour.
Compassionate
appointments are provided to the family to
immediately tide over the sudden financial
crisis so caused by the death of the
employee. This feature alone constituted
the kin of a deceased employee into one
class and on this sole footing the rationale
of compassionate ground appointments was
justified by Constitutional Courts.

15. The purpose of grant of
compassionate ground appointments can be
subserved and their constitutionality can be
saved only by strict compliance of the rules
governing the grant of compassionate
ground appointments."

21. There is consensus among
Constitutional Courts in the country on the
issue of compassionate appointments. The
Calcutta High Court in Ipsita Chakrabarti
v. State of West Bengal7 summarized the
aforesaid key principles which guide
appointments on compassionate grounds by
holding :

 "10. After going through the
judgments passed by the Supreme Court on
the issue of compassionate appointment,
the following principles emerge:-

(a)
Appointment
on
compassionate grounds is an exception
craved out to the general rule that
recruitment to public services is to be made
in a transparent and accountable manner
providing
opportunity
to
all
eligible
persons to compete and participate in the
selection process.

(b) The right of a dependent of an
employee
who
died
in
harness
for
compassionate appointment is based on the
scheme, executive instructions, rules etc.
framed by the employer and there is no
right to claim compassionate appointment
on any other ground apart from the above
scheme conferred by the employer.

(c)
Appointment
on
compassionate ground is given only for
meeting the immediate hardship which is
faced by the family by reason of the death
of the bread earner. When an appointment
is made on compassionate ground it should
be kept confined only to the purpose it
seems to achieve, the idea being not to
provide for endless compassion.

(d) Compassionate appointment
has to be exercised only in warranting
situations and circumstances existing in
granting appointment and guiding factors
should be financial condition of the
family."

22. The paramount importance for
granting equal opportunity to all aspirants
under
the
constitutional
scheme
for
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
government
appointments
and
the
exception created by the concept of
appointments on compassionate grounds
was reiterated by the Supreme Court in
N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and
others8. N.C. Santhosh (supra) while
citing the cases in point reaffirmed that
such appointments did not create any
vested right and also held that adherence to
the criteria for such appointments is a
mandatory requirement in law:

 "13. It is well settled that for all
the
government
vacancies
equal
opportunity should be provided to all
aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. However,
appointment on compassionate ground
offered to a dependant of a deceased
employee is an exception to the said norms.
In SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [SAIL v.
Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 378] it was remarked
accordingly
that
compassionate
appointment is a concession and not a right
and the criteria laid down in the Rules must
be satisfied by all aspirants.

14. This Court in SBI v Raj
Kumar [SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC
661 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 150] while
reiterating that no aspirant has a vested
right to claim compassionate appointment,
declared that the norms that are in force,
when the application is actually considered,
will be applicable. The employer's right to
modify the scheme depending on its
policies was recognised in this judgment.
Similarly, in MGB Gramin Bank v.
Chakrawarti Singh [MGB Gramin Bank v.
Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 :
(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 442] this Court
reiterated that compassionate appointment
has to be considered in accordance with the
prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim
that his case should be considered as per
the scheme existing on the date of death of
the government employee.

17. The above discussion suggest
that the view taken in Canara Bank v. M.
Mahesh Kumar [Canara Bank v. M.
Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015)
2 SCC (L&S) 539] is to be reconciled with
the contrary view of the coordinate Bench,
in the two earlier judgments. Therefore,
notwithstanding the strong reliance placed
by the appellant's counsel on Canara Bank
v.M. Mahesh Kumar [Canara Bank v. M.
Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015)
2 SCC (L&S) 539] as also the opinion of
the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka
High Court in Uday Krishna Naik v. State
of Karnataka [Uday Krishna Naik v. State
of Karnataka, 1999 SCC OnLine Kar 209 :
ILR 1999 Kar 2648] , it can not be said that
the appellant's claim should be considered
under the unamended provisions of the
Rules prevailing on the date of death of the
government employee.

18. In the most recent judgment
in State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar [State of
H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 :
(2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542] the earlier
decisions governing the principles of
compassionate appointment were discussed
and analysed. Speaking for the Bench, Dr
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. reiterated that
appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the
basis of principles in accord with Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution and
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule. The dependants of a
deceased government employee are made
eligible by virtue of the policy on
compassionate appointment and they must
fulfil the norms laid down by the State's
policy."

23. Absence of a vested right,
mandate of the constitutional scheme of
4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
189
recruitment and the need to strictly adhere
to the rules governing the grant of
appointment on compassionate grounds
was also emphasized by the Supreme Court
in
the
Director
of
Treasuries
in
Karnataka and another v. Somyashree9
:

"7.
While
considering
the
submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties a recent decision of this Court in the
case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra) on the
appointment on compassionate ground is
required to be referred to. After considering
catena of decisions of this Court on
appointment on compassionate grounds it is
observed and held that appointment to any
public post in the service of the State has to
be made on the 10 basis of principles in
accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution
of
India
and
the
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule. It is further observed
that the dependent of the deceased
Government employee are made eligible by
virtue of the policy on compassionate
appointment and they must fulfill the
norms laid down by the State's policy. It is
further observed and held that the norms
prevailing on the date of the consideration
of the application should be the basis for
consideration of claim of compassionate
appointment. A dependent of a government
employee, in the absence of any vested
right accruing on the death of the
government employee, can only demand
consideration of his/her application. It is
further observed he/she is, however,
entitled to seek consideration in accordance
with the norms as applicable on the day of
death of the Government employee. The
law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decision on grant of appointment on
compassionate ground can be summarized
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."

24. The purpose and limitations of
appointments on compassionate grounds
including the need to avoid conferring
benefits
merely
on
sympathetic
considerations alone were reiterated by the
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and
another v. Ankur Gupta10. In Ankur
Gupta (supra) it was clearly observed that
the
appointments
on
compassionate
grounds are not source of recruitment and
do not unduly interfere in the rights of
other
persons
who
are
eligible
for
appointment against that post:

 "6. As was observed in State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr.
(JT 1996 (6) SCC 646), it need not be
pointed out that the claim of person
concerned
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground is based on the
premises that he was dependant on the
deceased employee. Strictly this claim
cannot be upheld on the touchstone
of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
India. However, such claim is considered
as reasonable and permissible on the basis
of sudden crisis occurring in the family of
such employee who has served the State
and dies while in service. That is why it is
necessary for the authorities to frame rules,
regulations or to issue such administrative
orders which can stand the test of Articles
14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate
ground cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. Die-in harness scheme cannot be
made applicable to all types of posts
irrespective of the nature of service
rendered
by
the
deceased
employee. In Rani Devi's case (supra) it
was
held
that
scheme
regarding
appointment on compassionate ground if
extended to all types of casual or ad hoc
employees including those who worked as
apprentices
cannot
be
justified
on
constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra
Ambekar (Mrs.) and Anr. (1994 (2) SCC
718) it was pointed out that High Courts
and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer
benediction
impelled
by
sympathetic
considerations to make appointments on
compassionate
grounds
when
the
regulations framed in respect thereof do not
cover
and
contemplates
such
appointments. It
was
noted
in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and
Ors. (1994 (4) SCC 138) that as a rule in
public service appointment should be made
strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. The appointment on
compassionate ground is not another source
of recruitment but merely an exception to
the aforesaid requirement taking into
consideration the fact of the death of
employee while in service leaving his
family without any means of livelihood. In
such cases the object is to enable the family
to get over sudden financial crisis. But such
appointments on compassionate ground
have to be made in accordance with the
rules,
regulations
or
administrative
instructions taking into consideration the
financial condition of the family of the
deceased.

7.
In Director
of
Education
(Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar
and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was
observed that in matter of compassionate
appointment there cannot be insistence for
a
particular
post.
Out
of
purely
humanitarian consideration and having
regard to the fact that unless some source
of livelihood is provided the family would
not be able to make both ends meet,
provisions are made for giving appointment
to one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for appointment. Care
has, however, to be taken that provision for
ground of compassionate employment
which is in the nature of an exception to the
general
provisions
does
not
unduly
interfere with the right of those other
persons who are eligible for appointment to
seek appointment against the post which
would have been available, but for the
provision
enabling
appointment
being
made on compassionate grounds of the
dependant of the deceased employee. As it
is in the nature of exception to the general
provisions it cannot substitute the provision
to which it is an exception and thereby
nullify the main provision by taking away
completely the right conferred by the main
provision."

25. More recently the Supreme
Court in Tinku v. State of Haryana and
others11 summed up the position of law
settled over the years:

 "12.
As
regards
the
compassionate appointment being sought to
be
claimed
as
a
vested
right
for
appointment, suffice it to say that the said
4 All. Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
191
right is not a condition of service of an
employee who dies in harness, which must
be given to the dependent without any kind
of scrutiny or undertaking a process of
selection. It is an appointment which is
given on proper and strict scrutiny of the
various parameters as laid down with an
intention to help a family out of a sudden
pecuniary financial destitution to help it get
out of the emerging urgent situation where
the sole bread earner has expired, leaving
them
helpless
and
maybe
penniless.
Compassionate appointment is, therefore,
provided to bail out a family of the
deceased
employee
facing
extreme
financial
difficulty
and
but
for the
employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis. This shall in any case be
subject to the claimant fulfilling the
requirements as laid down in the policy,
instructions,
or
rules
for
such
a
compassionate appointment.

14. The very basis and the
rationale, wherever such policies are
framed for compassionate appointment is
with an object to grant relief to a family in
distress and facing destitution, and thus an
exception is culled out to the general rule in
favour of the family of the deceased
employee. This is resorted to by taking into
consideration the services rendered by such
employee and the consequent legitimate
legal expectations apart from the sudden
change in status and affairs of the family
because of the unexpected turn of events,
i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner.

15. The purpose, therefore, of
such policies is to give immediate succour
to
the
family. When
seen in
this
conspectus, three years as has been laid
down from the date of death of the
employee for putting forth a claim by a
dependant, which, includes attainment of
majority as per the 1999 policy instructions
issued by the Government of Haryana
cannot be said to be in any case unjustified
or illogical, especially when compassionate
appointment is not a vested right."

26. Lately in Canara Bank v.
Ajitkumar G.K.12 the Supreme Court
elaborated the need for assessing the
suitability on certain posts, the requirement
of determining financial hardship and the
caution of not merely giving one post for
another post while making compassionate
appointments:

 "33. The next sub-issue, which
cannot be overlooked, is this. The scheme
of 1993 envisages assessment of the
suitability
of
the
claimant
for
compassionate appointment. As has been
laid down in several decisions of this
Court, noted above, the clauses forming
part
of
the
policy/scheme 30
for
compassionate appointment have to be
followed
to
the
letter.