1. Challenge to 5% cap and objective test requirement in compassionate appointment rules for police dependants. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1389
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARINDAM SINHA, SATYA VEER SINGH, JJ.
Ajay Singh Yadav and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 16285 of 2022 Along with Special Appeal No. 741 of 2026, Writ A. No. 9862 of 2025, Writ A. No. 21709 of 2022, Writ A. No. 10279 of 2026, Writ A. No. 16043 of 2025, Writ A. No. 11210 of 2026, Writ A. No. 3358 of 2025, Writ A. No. 7243 of 2026, Writ A. No. 9786 of 2026
Decided On : 02-09-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Abhinav Gaur, Amrendu Singh, Anil Babu, Chandra Prakash Misra, Diwakar Mishra, Jainendra Pandey, Manish Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Rajbhar, Mohd. Yaseen, Prabhakar Awasthi, Prakash Sharma, Prashant Kumar Pandey, Praveen Kumar, Roopesh Kumar Mishra, Satish Chandra Dubey, Saurabh Tripathi, Shivendu Ojha, Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate, Sunil Kumar Mishra, Vibhu Rai, Vijay Singh Sengar, Vivek Saran (elevated)
For the Respondents: C.S.C., C.S.C.
For the Petitioners:Abhinav Gaur, Amrendu Singh, Anil Babu, Chandra Prakash Misra, Diwakar Mishra, Jainendra Pandey, Manish Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Rajbhar, Mohd. Yaseen, Prabhakar Awasthi, Prakash Sharma, Prashant Kumar Pandey, Praveen Kumar, Roopesh Kumar Mishra, Satish Chandra Dubey, Saurabh Tripathi, Shivendu Ojha, Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate, Sunil Kumar Mishra, Vibhu Rai, Vijay Singh Sengar, Vivek Saran (elevated)
For the Respondents: C.S.C., C.S.C.
The court upheld a 5% cap on compassionate appointments and the use of objective tests for inter se selection, ruling that such restrictions are reasonable to prevent the circumvention of competitive recruitment and ensure transparency when vacancies are limited.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16 and 309 - Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 - Rule 5(1) - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Validity of cap on compassionate appointments - Fixing an upper limit for filling vacancies through compassionate appointment is not unreasonable or arbitrary, as allowing a large number of posts to be filled on a compassionate basis by circumventing the competitive process would deprive candidates from the open market and potentially fill all vacancies without competitive examinations. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Government Order dated 18th September, 2015 - Objective type test for compassionate appointment - Where the number of candidates applying for compassionate appointment exceeds the number of available posts, subjecting candidates to an objective type test for inter se selection is reasonable. Such a procedure ensures transparency, prevents allegations of backdoor appointments, and is a valid method of evaluating candidates when vacancies are limited. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, being dependants of police personnel who died during service, challenged the note appended to Rule 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015, which restricts compassionate appointments to 5% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment. They further challenged a Government Order dated 18th September, 2015, which mandates an objective type test and physical efficiency test when the number of applicants exceeds the earmarked posts.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 5% restriction and the requirement for an objective test are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but are fair and reasonable measures to balance compassion with the necessity of a competitive recruitment process.
Issues: Whether the 5% cap on compassionate appointments under Rule 5(1) of the 2015 Rules and the requirement of an objective type test under the Government Order dated 18.09.2015 are ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: A reasonable restriction on compassionate appointments is permissible to ensure that the statutory provision of holding competitive examinations for the general public is not rendered redundant. Additionally, an objective test for inter se selection among compassionate candidates is a reasonable mechanism to determine selection when demand exceeds supply, avoiding disputes over the degree of necessity or entitlement.
Result: The writ petitions are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- service law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: cap and test ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16, 309. State: provisions reasonable and valid. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Selection by objective test among surplus candidates is reasonable; competition cannot be eliminated in compassionate appointment. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. A 5% cap and objective test for compassionate appointment, when candidates exceed vacancies, are not unconstitutional. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; no relief granted. (Para 9 )
6. Whether a 5% cap on compassionate appointment posts per year under police service rules is unconstitutional?
No. The cap is a reasonable restriction to prevent excessive compassionate appointments that would circumvent competitive recruitment and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
7. Whether requiring compassionate appointment candidates to take an objective type test when applications exceed vacancies is unreasonable?
No. Such a test, used only for inter se selection among claimants, is reasonable and avoids disputes over relative need for compassion. (Para 5 , 7 , 9 )
8. Whether an earlier Division Bench direction to withdraw the note due to confusion overrides the validity of the note?
No. That direction addressed confusion about the note's intent, not its validity, which was separately upheld by another Division Bench. (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Sinha, J.
1. The writ petitions are listed under heading 'Supreme Court Expedited Case'. Petitioners are applicants for compassionate appointment being dependants of police personnel, who died in service. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appear for petitioners in some of the writ petitions. Mr. Khare had earlier provided us English translation of Government Order (GO) dated 18th September, 2015, subject matter of additional challenge. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears for State.
2. First contention of petitioners is, note appended to rule 5(1) in Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 is ultra vires articles 14, 15, 16 and 309 in the Constitution. Rule 5(1) and the note are reproduced below.
"5. Source of recruitment. Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the following sources:
(1) Sub-Inspector
(i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the Board.
Note- Dependants of personnel of police department deceased during service who apply for the post of Sub- Inspector of Police in the dependant of deceased category shall recruited by the Board as per the policy decided by the Government. Restriction being that every year such posts shall not be more than 5 per cent of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment as against the vacancies arising in the previously sanctioned posts of Sub-Inspector of Police."
(emphasis supplied)
3. Mr. Khare submits, there is in place Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 applicable to compassionate appointment in government service. Said Rules do not provide for any limit or cap in respect of such appointments being made. He draws attention to view taken by a Division Bench of this Court on order dated 27th September, 2021 in Special Appeal no. 204 of 2021 ( Ashish Bahadur Singh and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others ). He points out, the Bench considered impugned note under the Rules. View was that the note appended does not provide reservation of 5% posts for compassionate appointment. Upon taking suo motu cognizance, there was direction upon the State Government to revisit the note appended to rule 5(1), to avoid any confusion and unnecessary litigation. The Bench reiterated that compassionate appointment should be governed by the Rules of 1974. Three paragraphs from said order are reproduced below.
"The Note appended to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2015 does not provide reservation of 5% posts for compassionate appointment. We are rather surprise to see the Note below Rule 5. The Note below Rule 5 of the Rules of 2015 is of a nature which is creating confusion and seems to be unnecessary. It is for the reason that in the State of U.P., the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 govern compassionate appointment other than of the departments having separate rules for it.
In view of the above, there was no need to provide separate provision in the service rule for compassionate appointment. It is unnecessarily creating confusion thus, a suo moto cognizance is taken by this Court to issue direction to the State Government to revisit the Note appended to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2015 to avoid any confusion and unnecessary litigation. The compassionate appointment should be governed by the Rules of 1974. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the State Government is directed to revisit the Note appended to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2015 to withdraw it so as to avoid any litigation and confusion in the mind of the officer.
With the aforesaid, special appeal is dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
He moves on to rely on view taken by another Division Bench of this Court on judgment dated 7th July, 2023 in Special Appeal no. 126 of 2023 ( State of U.P. and 3 others vs. Himanshu Yadav ). He draws attention to paragra
