Compassionate Appointment Violative Of Articles 14 & 16 Of Constitution; Scheme Must Be Implemented In Restricted Manner: Madras High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the State on the ground that the respondent was ineligible for compassionate appointment since his elder brother has been working in the Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai and the family is not in indigent circumstances.

The Bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan held, “Many citizens in remote areas of our Country are first time graduates and are waiting for such employment notification to secure public employment, which they consider as a status in the society. Depriving those meritorious candidates of securing employment on merits and through reservation is unconstitutional. Therefore, the scheme of compassionate appointment itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Under the scheme, no merit assessment has been made, no reservation is followed, eligibility criteria is not followed and death alone is the criteria to provide public employment. Therefore, the scheme is to be implemented in a restricted manner.”

Additional Government Pleader Y. Kavitha represented the Petitioner while Advocate P. Ganesh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The father of the writ petitioner was employed as B.T. Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Vilandai, Ariyalur District and he died in 2011, while he was in service. The respondent being the third legal heir of the deceased employee submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment in January 2012. The said application was rejected mainly on the ground that the second legal heir of the deceased employee and the elder brother of the respondent was employed in the Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai and further, the family was not in indigent circumstances. Consequently, the application was rejected.

The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority was also rejected, which led to the filing of the petition before the Court. The Writ Court considered these aspects and granted the relief. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed the appeal in question.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained, “The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not a constitutional scheme of appointment. Compassion can never be claimed as an absolute right. Thus, the scheme is to be implemented scrupulously in terms and conditions stipulated.”

The Bench opined that the State has to ensure equal opportunity in public employment and social justice as mandated to protect the rule of reservation for the socially backward and downtrodden communities. “Any extended scheme of concessional appointments, undoubtedly would deprive the opportunities of weaker section in the society and thereby offending the principles of social justice as mandated under the constitution”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the authorities, during evaluation, found that the family was not in indigent circumstances, especially when the elder brother of the respondent was employed in a Bank. Considering the fact that these factors were assessed by the competent authority and it formed an opinion that the family was not in indigent circumstances, the Bench set aside the writ order and allowed the Writ Appeal.

Cause Title: The Secretary To Government v. B Arunpragadheesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3529)

Appearance

Petitioner: Additional Government Pleader Y.Kavitha

Respondent: Advocates P.Ganesh, M.Praveen Kumar

Click here to read/download Order