Back
2026 Supreme(MP) 757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. AHLUWALIA & ANURADHA SHUKLA, JJ.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Appellant
Versus
Piyush Kushwah – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2740 of 2026
Decided On : 15-09-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri G.K. Agrawal - Government Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Rishabh Sharma Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment is not a substitute for direct recruitment and cannot relax statutory qualification or age criteria. Inordinate delay in seeking such appointment frustrates its primary purpose of providing immediate financial relief to the bereaved family to tide over a sudden crisis.
Headnote:
(1) Compassionate Appointment -- minimum age requirement -- respondent's father died in 2012 -- respondent attained majority on 15.1.2021 and was immediately appointed as laboratory teacher on compassionate ground on 8.2.2021 -- State subsequently cancelled appointment on 13.7.2021 on ground that statutory rules prescribe minimum age limit of 21 years for recruitment to aforesaid post -- Single Judge reversed order of cancellation -- executive instructions or circulars cannot override statutory rules -- compassionate appointment does not relax qualification criteria, including age limitation -- order of Single Judge set aside. W. A. No. 608 of 2026 decided on 21.8.2026 relied on. [Paras 15 & 21
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- suppression of material facts -- writ petition challenging cancellation of compassionate appointment filed after delay of three years and two months without explanation -- applicant remained silent on date of his father's demise and details of other siblings -- deliberate suppression of date of death to avoid plea of delay constitutes material suppression -- however, in view of appointment granted initially, liberty extended to applicant to submit fresh application disclosing entire facts. (2025) 5 SCC 712 followed. W. A. No. 738 of 2024 decided on 20.8.2025 relied on. [Paras 12, 13, 16, 17 & 20
¼1½ vuqdaik fu;qfä & U;wure vk;q dh vis{kk & çR;FkÊ d¢ firk dh e`R;q o"kZ 2012 esa gqà & çR;FkÊ 15-1-2021 d¨ o;Ld gqvk rFkk mls rqjar 8-2-2021 d¨ vuqdaik vkèkkj ij ç;¨x'kkyk f'k{kd d¢ in ij fu;qä fd;k x;k & ckn esa jkT; us 13-7-2021 d¨ bl vkèkkj ij fu;qfä jí dj nh fd dkuwuh fu;eksa esa iwo¨Zä in ij ÒrÊ d¢ fy, 21 o"kZ dh U;wure vk;q lhek fofgr gS & ,dy U;k;kèkh'k us jídj.k dk vkns'k myV fn;k & dk;Zikfyd vuqns'k rFkk ifji= dkuwuh fu;e¨a ij vfÒÒkoh ugÈ g¨ ldrs & vuqdaik fu;qfä vgZrk ekunaM¨a d¨ f'kfFky ugÈ djrh] ftuesa vk;q lhek lfEefyr gS & ,dy U;k;kèkh'k dk vkns'k vikLrA fjV vihy Ø- 608 lu~ 2026 fu.kÊr fnukad 21-8-2026 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 21
¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuq- 226 & rkfRod rF; fNikuk & vuqdaik fu;qfä dk jídj.k vkf{kIr djrs gq, fjV ;kfpdk fdlh Li"Vhdj.k d¢ fcuk 3 o"kZ 2 ekl d¢ foyac d¢ i'pkr~ çLrqr dh xà & vkosnd vius firk dh e`R;q d¢ fnukad rFkk vU; Òkb;¨a&cgu¨a d¢ fooj.k ij e©u jgk & foyac d¢ vfÒokd~ ls cpus d¢ fy, e`R;q d¢ fnukad d¨ tkucw>dj fNikuk rkfRod fNiko gS & rFkkfi] vkjaÒ esa nh xà vuqdaik fu;qfä dh n`f"V ls] vkosnd d¨ leLr rF; çdV djrs gq, u, fljs ls vkosnu çLrqr djus dh Lora=rk nh xÃA ¼2025½ 5 ,llhlh 712 vuqlfjrA fjV vihy Ø- 738 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 20-8-2025 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12] 13] 16] 17 ,oa 20
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Heard on I.A.No.10952/2026. This is an application for condonation of delay.
2. It is submitted by counsel for appellants that against order dated 26/08/2025, State had filed W.A. No.1124/2026, which was disposed of by order dated 13/05/2026 with liberty to State to prefer a review. Thereafter, R.P. No. 1170/2026 was filed, which has been dismissed by order dated 15/07/2026.
3. Since review petition was dismissed, therefore, the period of limitation has to be counted from the date when the original order was passed. Thus, the delay has occurred, whereas appeal has been filed within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of order in review.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, and delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
5. This writ appeal under Section 2(1), M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against order dated 26/08/2025, passed in W.P. No.29661/2024 and 15/07/2026 in R.P. No.1170/2026.
6. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that respondent filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-
7. Notices were issued to appellants vide order dated 8/1/2025. On 20/5/2025, 24/6/2025 and 28/7/2025, opportunities were granted to the appellants to file return but no reply was filed and, ultimately by order dated 26/8/2025, the writ petition was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellants preferred W.A. No.1124/2026. In that writ appeal, an additional ground was raised by appellants that respondent was not an employee of the State Government and by order dated 13/5/2026 passed in W.A. No.1124/2026, this Court granted permission to the State to file a review. Thereafter, R.P. No.1170/2026 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 15/7/2026.
8. Challenging the orders passed by the the learned Single Judge, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that this Court, by order dated 21/8/2026 passed in the case of State of M.P. and Others Vs. Aditya Sharma in W.A. No.608/2026, has held that since minimum age for recruitment to the post of Laboratory Teacher is 21 years therefore respondent therein could not have been granted appointment on compassionate ground on the said post prior to attaining the age of 21 years and had set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that as per mark-sheet annexed by the respondent along with his writ petition, it is clear that date of birth of respondent is 16/1/2003 and he was 9 years of age on the date of demise of his father. Just after attaining the age of 18 years, it appears that by order dated 8/2/2021 (he attained majority on 15/1/2021), respondent was granted appointment on compassionate grounds on the post of Laboratory Teacher. Thereafter, by order dated 13/7/2021, the appointment of respondent on compassionate ground was cancelled on the ground that he had not attained the minimum age i.e. 21 years and, accordingly, it was held that in case if any relaxation in age is given by the State, then respondent would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds from the date of order i.e. 8/2/2021, or else he will be granted appointment on compassionate grounds after attaining the age of 21 years. This order was never challenged by the respondent. However, it appears that in the month of September 2024 (as submitted by the counsel for respondent during arguments), the respondent again moved an application (Annexure P/9) filed along with the writ petition stating that he has attained the age of 21 years and has also passed the B.Ed and CTET examinations and, accordingly, it was prayed that not only he has acquired the educational qualifications, but he is also above the minimum age of 21 years. Since no order was passed, therefore, WP No. 29661 of 2024 was filed.
9. It is submitted that it is a well-established principle of law that delay frustrates the basic purpose of appointment on compassionate gro
