G.S. Singhvi, C.J.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 16(1) lies down that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The Courts have interpreted this facet of the doctrine of equality as casting duty on every public authority to make appointment to public services and on the posts in connection with the affairs of the State by adopting a mechanism, which ensures opportunity to all similarly situated persons to compete for selection. One exception to this rule can be found in the constitutional scheme of reservation for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women. The other exception can be found in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which provides for reservation for physically challenged persons. The courts by have carved third exception out according approval to the policies framed by the governments and their agencies/instrumentalities for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The philosophy underlying the policy of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the family of an employee who dies in harness by appointing one member of the family on similar or lower post. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138), the Supreme Court referred to an earlier judgment in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468) and observed:

"...........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 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 non-manual 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 m