Compassionate appointment is a one-time humanitarian exception to equality in public employment, granting relief only for immediate financial hardship. Once an applicant has accepted a post offered on compassionate grounds, their right to such consideration is consummated, precluding any claim for a second or higher position.

Headnote:(A) Regulations 103-107 of Chapter III framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Compassionate appointment - Consummation of right - Claim for appointment to higher post after acquiring higher qualifications subsequent to initial appointment - Constitutional validity - Equality of opportunity - Appointments under State must follow open invitation of applications. (Paras 14-18, 20, 26)

(B) Compassionate appointment is a deviation from the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment - It is granted solely to provide immediate relief against financial destitution and must be strictly confined to its defined purpose - Once an applicant has accepted a post on compassionate grounds based on their qualifications at that time, the right is considered "consummated," preventing any subsequent claim for a different or higher post. (Paras 13, 19, 20, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, son of a deceased employee, obtained a compassionate appointment to a lower-grade post. After joining, he acquired higher academic and professional qualifications and moved the court seeking a fresh appointment to a higher teaching post, claiming entitlement based on his enhanced credentials and a previous departmental policy on compassionate appointments.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that compassionate appointment is an exception intended only to mitigate sudden financial crisis arising from a death in service. It found that the claim for a higher post after the acceptance of a lower post constitutes a second consideration, which is impermissible.

Issues: Whether a dependent, once appointed on compassionate grounds as a remedial measure to poverty, may seek a second appointment or promotion to a higher post upon acquiring additional educational qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to compassionate appointment is satisfied the moment an individual joins the offered post. Such employment serves as a one-time humanitarian relief and cannot be utilized as a stepping stone to higher positions or career progression. Eligibility for a higher post does not revive a claim that has already been fulfilled.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the compassionate appointment claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties argument regarding eligibility and entitlement to higher posts post-appointment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. legal rationale defining compassionate appointment as an exception to equality of opportunity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. principle of consummation: no second-time compassionate appointment to higher posts permitted. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final adjudication dismissing the petition due to settled service law principles. (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a Writ, Order, or, Direction in the nature of the Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools District Sultanpur [the opposite party no. 03] and as contained in Annexure No. 11 accompanying the instant Writ Petition.

(ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of the Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the Opposite Parties to appoint the petitioner on the post Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade cadre on compassionate ground and allow the petitioner to work as the Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade cadre in the Ramkali Balika Inter College, District Sultanpur and pay salary.

(iii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the Opposite Parties to pay salary to the petitioner as the Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade cadre and the Opposite Party No. 03 [the District Inspector of Schools Sultanpur] kindly be directed to accept the Resolution dated 16.07.2007 of the Committee of Management of the Ramkali Balika Inter College, District Sultanpur.”

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely, late Raja Ram Jaiswal, while working as an Assistant Teacher at Mustquim Inter College, Gyanipur, Sultanpur, died on 26.05.2003. On account of his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, pursuant to which he was appointed to the post of Peon at Ramkali Balika Inter College, Sultanpur, vide order dated 24.01.2004 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as “DIOS”).

4. The petitioner joined the post of Peon in the said institution on 30.01.2004. However, prior thereto, he had submitted a letter dated 29.01.2004 addressed to the DIOS, Sultanpur, wherein he claimed appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, being duly qualified for the said post. Thereafter, on 10.07.2007, the petitioner submitted an application to the Manager of the Institution through the Principal, claiming appointment as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds as per his qualifications. The said application was forwarded by the Principal of the Institution with no objection. Thereafter, the Committee of Management took a decision to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher and referred the matter to the DIOS, Sultanpur for appointment under Section 16 of the UTTAR PRADESH SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES SELECTION BOARD ACT , 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1982”). Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.09.2007 to the DIOS, Sultanpur, which was rejected vide order dated 17.10.2007, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the order dated 17.10.2007, has submitted that Regulations 103 to 107 of Chapter III framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with section 3 of the Act, 1982 provide for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Referring particularly to Regulation 103, it has been contended that a family member of a deceased teacher is entitled to be appointed to the post of