1. Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate basis, alleging clerk played mischief, leading to acceptance of lower post. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Aditya Kulshreshtha – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 31398 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Akash Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, Government Advocate, Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate
For the Petitioner:Shri Akash Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, Government Advocate, Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate
A candidate appointed on compassionate grounds to a lower post due to administrative misinformation regarding vacancies may be reconsidered for a higher post for which they are qualified, as such deprivation violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 226 - Compassionate Appointment - Right to Equality - Where a candidate is qualified for a specific post but is misled by administrative staff regarding the availability of vacancies, leading the candidate to accept a lower post, such action constitutes a violation of the right to equality under Article 14. (Para 9)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Scope of second consideration - Generally, once the right for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated by accepting a post, no further consideration for a higher post is warranted to avoid "endless compassion" - However, this principle is distinguishable in cases where administrative mischief or misinformation deprived the candidate of their right to equality. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner sought appointment to a specific higher post on compassionate grounds. Due to incorrect information provided by administrative staff stating that no vacancy existed for the desired post, the petitioner accepted appointment to a lower post. The petitioner subsequently alleged that other similarly situated candidates were granted appointments to the higher post, leading to a claim of discrimination and violation of Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the case was distinguishable from precedents where relief was denied because no administrative mischief was involved. Since the petitioner was qualified for the higher post but accepted a lower one due to wrong information provided by a clerk, the court identified a violation of the right to equality.
Issues: Whether a candidate who has already accepted a compassionate appointment to a lower post can be reconsidered for a higher post if the initial acceptance was based on misleading information provided by administrative staff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that if a candidate is deprived of a higher post for which they are qualified due to administrative mischief, the right to equality under Article 14 is violated; therefore, the candidate is entitled to reconsideration for the higher post, subject to the availability of a vacancy.
Result: petition filed by petitioner is disposed off directing respondents to re-consider the case of petitioner for appointment to post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator, if vacant post is available with them. Exercise be completed within a period of 90 days.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed discrimination and right to be appointed on a higher post; respondent argued right stands consummated. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Once mischief depriving equality under Article 14 is proven, further compassionate appointment to higher post can be considered. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Directed respondents to reconsider petitioner's case for appointment to the higher post if vacant. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Can a dependent seek appointment on a higher post after accepting a lower post on compassionate grounds?
No, unless mischief played by the employer or its agent deprived the dependent of equality under Article 14. (Para 8 )
6. What is the effect of acceptance of a lower post on the right to compassionate appointment?
Once the right is consummated by accepting appointment, no further right to a higher post exists, except in cases of fraud or mischief. (Para 8 )
7. Is mischief by a clerk a valid ground to reopen compassionate appointment to a higher post?
Yes, mischief by a clerk that violates Article 14 can justify reconsideration for a higher post if vacancy exists. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding respondents to comply with order dated 17.03.2023 and grant appointment to petitioner on post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator on compassionate basis.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was having requisite qualification on date when his application was under consideration for being appointed to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator. However, Clerk played a mischief and wrongly informed petitioner that there is no vacant position. Due to said wrong information, petitioner accepted the post of Chowkidar-cum- Helper. It is submitted that had correct information been given to petitioner, petitioner may not have exercised his option. It is also submitted that other similarly situated candidates were given appointment on post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator. Petitioner has been discriminated and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel appearing for petitioner made a prayer to issue writ of mandamus.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer. It is submitted that petitioner does not have any right to the post. Appointment on compassionate basis is granted to help a candidate to tide over financial crisis. As a right, a candidate cannot ask for being appointed to a particular post. It is further submitted that petitioner has accepted appointment in year 2020 without any grudge. Once he accepts appointment, right of petitioner for further consideration to another post is over. Same request cannot be considered after appointment is given to petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner further submitted that order passed by appellate authority dated 17.03.2023 is without jurisdiction. There is no statutory right of appeal. Said order could not be relied upon.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has argued that petitioner is not making any claim for complying order dated 17.03.2023, however, petitioner had made pleadings in writ petition that order dated 17.03.2023 is to be complied with. Due to aforesaid wrong assertion before this Court, cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) is imposed upon counsel for petitioner, to be paid to Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur within a period of 15 days.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Surya Kant Kadam vs State of Karnataka and others , reported in (2002) 9 SCC 445. In said case, it was found that petitioner was having qualification to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Excise but has been appointed as Second Division Assistant Clerk. In said case also, mischief was played against petitioner therein by Clerk. In view of same, Apex Court held that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, relief was granted in favour of petitioner therein.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has relied upon judgment passed by Apex Court in case of The Director of Town Panchayat and others vs M. Jayabal and another , reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1203. In said case, Apex Court has held as under :
"9. The law on the issue is well-settled. The issue as to whether a second option can be exercised by the dependent family member of the deceased employee, once option for compassionate appointment has already been exercised and the dependent family member of the deceased joined on the post to which appointment was given, was considered by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh , (1994) 6 SCC 560. In this case, the deceased was working as Sub-Inspector, CID. On account of his death during service, application for appointment on compassionate basis was made. The dependant was offered appointment on the post of L.D.C. The same was accepted and the i
