Back
Upholds 5% Cap, Objective Test For Police Compassionate Appointments
A of the has upheld the of the 5% cap on compassionate appointments in the and the requirement for an objective test when candidates outnumber vacancies. The Court dismissed a batch of challenging the note appended to , and a related .
The Challenge: Dependants Contest the 5% Ceiling and Written Test
The petitioners, dependants of police personnel who died in harness, argued that the note under Rule 5(1) violated Articles 14, 15, 16, and 309 of the Constitution. They contended that the , which govern , impose no such cap. Senior Advocate , appearing for some petitioners, submitted that the 5% restriction and the requirement to appear in an objective test defeated the very purpose of —namely, to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family without the rigours of competition.
He also relied on earlier orders in , where the Court had taken cognizance of the note and directed the State to revisit it, and , which deprecated the practice of accumulating vacancies for four years before applying the 5% cap.
State’s Defence: Precedent and Necessity
, Chief Standing Counsel for the State, placed reliance on , where an earlier had already upheld both the note and the objective test as fair and reasonable. He argued that without an upper limit, compassionate appointments could crowd out open market candidates, and that the test merely provided a mechanism for selection among dependants when applications exceeded posts.
Court’s Reasoning: Competition Cannot Be Eliminated
The Bench, comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh, noted that the point was no longer in light of Ankur Gautam . Distinguishing Himanshu Yadav , the Court observed that the earlier Bench had not considered Ankur Gautam , which clearly upheld the validity of the note.
On the objective test, the Court held that where more dependants apply than there are vacancies, “the element of competition cannot be totally eliminated even in the matter of grant of .” It reasoned that evaluating who is more deserving of compassion would inevitably breed disputes, whereas a written test provides an objective, non-arbitrary basis for selection.
Key Observations
The Court made several notable observations:
“In the exercise of evaluating who amongst the candidates are entitled to , as more in need of compassion, it is bound to give rise to controversy and dispute. Subjecting such candidates to , on the other hand, will not bear occasion for one candidate to complain that the other was given backdoor appointment.”
“The element of competition cannot be totally eliminated even in the matter of grant of , where there are more candidates than number of the vacancies.”
“Where there are more applications for than vacancies available to accommodate them, State having resorted to procedure of selection amongst them by requiring the candidates to appear in instead of ascertaining suitability on basis of greater necessity of compassion … such procedure cannot be seen as unreasonable.”
Decision: Petitions Dismissed
The Court dismissed all the , upholding the note to Rule 5(1) and the Government Order. The ruling reinforces the State’s policy of limiting compassionate appointments to 5% of vacancies and requiring an objective test when demand exceeds supply. The decision is likely to affect hundreds of pending applications from dependants of deceased police personnel across Uttar Pradesh.
