Summary
A Maharashtra government clerk died in harness, and his widow was given compassionate appointment. She too died in service in 2006. An elder married daughter's application for compassionate appointment was rejected in 2011. After a 2013 circular, the respondent, the younger married daughter, applied about seven years after her mother's death and was refused. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Bombay High Court directed that her case be considered. The Supreme Court reversed. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the Article 14 and 16 rule of open, merit-based recruitment. It is a concession, not a right, given under the applicable policy to help a family in penury through a sudden crisis, not to provide a post. The respondent was not dependent on her mother, and appointing her years after the death would defeat that purpose.
Issues
- Whether a married daughter who applied about seven years after her mother's death in service, following the rejection of her elder married sister's claim, was entitled to compassionate appointment.
- Whether the Tribunal and the High Court could direct consideration of such a claim.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaPublic appointments must ordinarily be open to all on merit. Compassionate appointment is a narrow exception, justified only to relieve a deceased employee's dependants from sudden destitution, and must follow the policy. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
Held
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule, and no aspirant has a right to it. It may be made only in accordance with the State's policy and eligibility criteria, applying the norms in force when the application is considered (V. Somyashree, N.C. Santhosh). (¶¶ 5, 6)
- The object is to help the family of an employee who died in harness, leaving it in penury, to tide over the sudden crisis. It is not to give the family a post, still less the post the deceased held (Umesh Kumar Nagpal, Shashi Kumar). (¶¶ 6.1, 7)
- The respondent, a married daughter, could not be said to have been dependent on her deceased mother. A claim made years after the death, after her sister's claim had failed, was contrary to the purpose of the scheme, and the Tribunal and the High Court erred in directing that it be considered. (¶¶ 4, 7.1, 8)
Result
Appeal allowed. The orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Bombay High Court directing consideration of the respondent for compassionate appointment were set aside. No costs.