JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Impugned Order No. ZO(N)-35.0014/33/2025-ESTT IX ZON) dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-16) passed by Respondent No. 2, as the same is illegal, arbitrary, based on factually incorrect premises, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner’s father, Late Sh. Leelu Ram, was employed as a Picker with the Food Corporation of India and died in harness on 17.09.2007, leaving behind his widow and seven dependent children. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, which belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and owns no immovable property except a small ancestral house. The sudden demise of the employee rendered the family destitute and without any stable means of livelihood.

3. Soon after the death of his father, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in November 2007, along with consent affidavits from other family members. His case was placed on the zonal roster for a Category-IV post. During the pendency of his claim, the petitioner acquired higher qualifications, namely graduation and a one-year computer diploma, and accordingly sought consideration for a Category-III post. The request for change of category was duly forwarded by the Regional Office to the Zonal Office in March 2011, prior to rejection of his case in April 2011. However, without considering the pending request and without assessing the financial hardship of the family, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground of non-availability of vacancies within the 5% quota.

4. Subsequently, in light of the consolidated instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 16.01.2013, which were adopted by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner again applied for compassionate appointment under the revised policy. Despite repeated representations, RTI disclosures showing that several similarly placed cases were reconsidered and appointments were granted, and despite judicial directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petitions, the respondents failed to grant relief to the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-16) suffers from patent factual errors, particularly with respect to the timing of the petitioner’s request for consideration under Category-III, which was made prior to the rejection of his original claim. It is argued that the finding regarding the petitioner’s financial status is perverse, as statutory documents such as the BPL Ration Card and Parivar Pehchan Patra conclusively establish the family’s continued indigent condition. Mere receipt of terminal benefits, which were utilized to discharge liabilities, cannot be treated as a bar to compassionate appointment.

7. It is further contended that the ground of non-availability of vacancies is belied by the respondents’ own RTI replies and subsequent appointments made under the compassionate quota. The petitioner alleges discriminatory treatment inasmuch as similarly situated candidates, including one Mukesh Kumar, were granted relief pursuant to judicial directions, while the petitioner’s claim has been arbitrarily denied on artificial distinctions. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have failed to apply the benevolent object of the compassionate appointment scheme and have acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference by this Court.

Analysis

8. Before delving in to merits of the present case, it is apposite to discuss the foundational jurisprudence of the provision dealing with appointment on compassionate grounds. The provision for co