Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, J.
Vinay Kumar Athiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. and others – Respondents
W. P. No. 8461 of 2023
Decided on : 05-01-2024
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - EMPLOYMENT LAW - The court addressed the issue of compassionate appointment, emphasizing that once a candidate accepts a position on compassionate grounds, they are estopped from claiming a higher post. The court interpreted the relevant state policy and precedent, concluding that the petitioner, having accepted the position of Constable (M), could not later seek a higher appointment as ASI (M). This interpretation reinforced the principle that acceptance of a compassionate appointment exhausts the right to further claims for higher positions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged his appointment as Constable (M) on compassionate grounds after his father's death in service. He argued that he was entitled to a higher position as ASI (M) due to passing the CPCT examination, while others in similar situations were appointed as ASI (M).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had accepted the compassionate appointment as Bal Arakshak and later as Constable (M), which precluded him from claiming a higher post. The court noted that the petitioner could not demonstrate that the post of Constable (M) was not for direct recruitment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could claim a higher post after accepting a compassionate appointment and whether the post of Constable (M) was a direct recruitment post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh, which states that acceptance of a compassionate appointment exhausts the right to seek a higher post. The court held that the petitioner was estopped from claiming a higher position after accepting the appointment as Constable (M).
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.
ORDER :
This petition is filed being aggrieved of the action of the respondents in giving him appointment on compassionate basis as Constable (M). Petitioner’s contention is that his father died in harness on 8-7-2017. On 23-1-2018, the petitioner was given appointment as Bal Arakshak as he had not attained the age of 18 years. On his attaining the age of majority, his compassionate appointment as Bal Arakshak was brought to an end and he was given appointment as Arakshak (M).
2. It is submitted that he is challenging his appointment on the post of Constable (M) on the ground of discrimination inasmuch as the petitioner has passed CPCT examination and is entitled to be appointed as ASI (M) and similarly situated persons have been given appointment as ASI (M) but the petitioner is given appointment as Constable (M).
3. Placing reliance on paragraph 5.1 of the State Policy for grant of compassionate appointment as contained in Annexure P-6 dated 29-9-2014, it is submitted that appointment should have been given on the lowest post to be filled by direct recruitment. It is submitted that the post of Constable (M) is not a post for direct recruitment.
4. Shri Vijay Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the post of Constable (M) is a direct recruitment post and the petitioner having accepted appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2018, is estopped from taking this plea after lapse of five years in terms of the provisions contained in paragraph 13.1 of the same policy which provides that once a person accepts an appointment on compassionate basis, then he is estopped from seeking appointment on any other post.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out from the relevant rules that the post of Constable (M) is not a post meant for direct recruitment.
6. In this regard law is also crystal clear. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that once a compassionate appointment was given and accepted, the right to such appointment stood exhausted and second consideration for a higher post was not warranted.
7. Hence, looking to the fact that the petitioner accepted his compassionate appointment as Constable (M), therefore, he is precluded from claiming appointment on any higher post after having accepted the appointment once, in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umrao Singh (supra).
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Acceptance of a compassionate appointment precludes the individual from later claiming a higher post, as established by state policy and judicial precedent.
Compassionate appointment is contingent on meeting eligibility criteria, and being married disqualifies applicants from age relaxation.
Appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right, and the appointee does not have the right to choose a particular post.
Once a compassionate appointment is accepted, the right to further appointment under the same scheme is extinguished, and lacking requisite qualifications invalidates the appointment.
Compassionate appointments in armed services must be approached humanely, recognizing the need for welfare for families of injured personnel, making such claims justiciable under constitutional provi....
Compassionate employment is not a legal right but an exception to Articles 14 and 16, requiring adherence to specific policies regarding age and eligibility.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
