No Second Chance for Physical Efficiency Test in Compassionate Appointment for Disciplined Forces: Allahabad High Court - 2025-04-22

Allahabad High Court: No Second Chances in Physical Tests for Compassionate Police Appointments

Allahabad, [Date of Judgement] – In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court overturned a single judge's order, clarifying that candidates seeking compassionate appointment in disciplined forces like the police are not entitled to a second opportunity to clear the physical efficiency test if they fail in their first attempt. The bench, comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Anish Kumar Gupta, delivered this verdict in a Special Appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others against Geeta Rani , the widow of a late Head Constable.

Case Background

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Geeta Rani , whose husband, Man Singh , a Head Constable in the Civil Police, passed away while in service. Seeking compassionate appointment, Ms. Rani applied for the post of Sub-Inspector. She was directed to undergo a physical efficiency test, which she failed to clear, missing the required running time by a mere three seconds. Subsequently, a single judge of the High Court, relying on a previous order from a coordinate bench, granted Ms. Rani one last opportunity to pass the physical test, or alternatively, be offered a suitable compassionate appointment even if she failed again.

Arguments Presented by the State

Representing the appellant-State, Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ansari , argued that the single judge's order was unsustainable. He emphasized that compassionate appointments are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and relevant Government Orders. Crucially, the Government Order dated 18.09.2015 explicitly provides only one chance for candidates to clear the physical efficiency test for compassionate appointments. Mr. Ansari argued that there is no provision for granting a second chance, and Ms. Rani , having participated in the test without objection, could not now claim another attempt after failing.

He further cited Supreme Court judgments in The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Premlata and Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , highlighting that compassionate appointment is meant to offer a "suitable post" which should be commensurate with the post held by the deceased employee, not necessarily a post matching the dependent's qualifications. Therefore, offering Ms. Rani the post of Sub-Inspector, higher than her husband's post, was already a deviation from the established principle.

Mr. Ansari also pointed out that the single judge heavily relied upon a prior order in Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. , which itself explicitly stated that it should not be treated as a precedent. He emphasized that while the Dharmendra Singh case was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court, the apex court clarified that the legal issue remained open and the High Court's judgment should not serve as a precedent.

Respondent's Counter Arguments

The counsel for Geeta Rani argued in defense of the single judge’s order, asserting that it was passed on equitable grounds. They emphasized the minimal three-second delay in completing the physical test and pleaded for a sympathetic consideration in compassionate appointment cases. Relying on the Dharmendra Singh judgment, they argued that the single judge was within their jurisdiction to exercise equity under Article 226 of the Constitution and grant another opportunity.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The Division Bench, after considering the arguments and relevant legal precedents, sided with the State. The court emphasized the disciplined nature of the police force, stating that even direct recruits are not granted relaxations in physical tests. Referring to the declaration form signed by Ms. Rani before the physical test, the bench noted her voluntary participation without objection, implying she accepted the terms, including no second chances.

The court underscored that compassionate appointment is not an alternative recruitment method but a means to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family. It is not intended to confer status or be a regular source of employment.

The judgment explicitly quoted Clause 2(5) of the Government Order dated 18.09.2015, reinforcing that only one opportunity is permissible for the physical test in compassionate appointments. The bench reiterated that the Dharmendra Singh case, relied upon by the single judge, was explicitly stated not to be a precedent and the Supreme Court upheld this position.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment:

> "In the present matter relates to compassionate appointment in a disciplined force i.e. police force and under the relevant provisions of the Rules, no relaxation in physical examination is accorded even to the direct recruitees and if they do not complete the race in the specific time, they are not selected hence no relaxation is available or to be extended qua the candidate seeking compassionate appointment..."

> "Surprisingly, in the present matter, the husband of the petitioner was working as Head Constable and she was allowed to participate for an appointment under the compassionate employment on the higher post to which her husband was holding i.e. on the post of Sub Inspector. The said offer could not be accorded to the petitioner-respondent in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Premlata (supra) and Suneel Kumar (supra)."

> "Before parting, this Court deems it fit to observe that the appointment under the compassionate scheme is not meant to be an alternate source of recruitment. It is essentially to reach immediate succor to a bereaved family. In other words, the sudden passing away of a government servant creates a financial vacuum and it is to lend a helping hand to the genuinely needed members of the bereaved family that an appointment is provided. It is never meant to be a source of conferring any status or an alternate mode of recruitment."

Final Order and Implications

Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal, setting aside the single judge’s order. While denying a second chance for the Sub-Inspector post, the court directed that Ms. Rani is still eligible to apply for other suitable posts within the department as per her eligibility and suitability, in line with the Government Order dated 18.09.2015. The department is directed to consider such an application within a defined timeframe.

This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to rules and Government Orders in compassionate appointment matters, especially within disciplined forces, and clarifies that equity cannot override established procedures, particularly concerning physical fitness standards and the limited scope of compassionate appointments.