WA/419/2024 of THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs KEERTHANA on 10 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 08.08.2023 in WP.No.19487 of 2023.

2. The District Collector, Nilgiris District has filed the present intra- court appeal. 1st respondent had filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2022, rejecting the application submitted by the 1st respondent seeking compassionate appointment.

3. The facts in brief are that 1st respondent is the granddaughter of Late Mr.Sundaram, who served as a Sanitary Worker in Kotagiri Special Grade Town Panchayat and died in harness on 17.11.2017 while in service. 1st respondent is the daughter's daughter (granddaughter) of the deceased employee seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. Pertinently, 1st respondent claims to be the adopted daughter of the deceased employee's daughter. However, no valid document of adoption had been produced before the competent authority. Under the scheme for compassionate appointment, the granddaughter/grandson of the deceased employee are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that wife of the deceased employee, who is the grandmother of 1st respondent, is being maintained by 1st respondent. He would further submit that her grandmother had nominated the 1st respondent for securing employment on compassionate grounds, since the 1st respondent is the adopted daughter of the deceased employee's daughter.

6. The claim made out by 1st respondent in the writ petition per se is stale and would fall beyond the scope of the terms and conditions stipulated under the scheme of compassionate appointment. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession provided to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. If the scheme is extended or misplaced on grounds of sympathy or if the conditions are violated, it would result in an unconstitutionality, causing infringement of the rights of meritorious candidates, who are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. The scheme per se is violative to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

7. Hereditary Government appointments in violation of the constitutional scheme of appointments would not only infringe the fundamental rights of the citizens in general, but are unknown to the Constitution. Such extra-constitutional scheme of appointments, if expanded by the Courts, would deprive the rightful claim of the candidates, who all are aspiring to secure employment through the constitutional scheme of appointments on merits, by availing reservation and through open competitive process.

8. The effect of compassionate appointment in one angle, is that the family, who lost the breadwinner is able to secure a job under the compassionate appointment and lead their livelihood peacefully. Therefore, the relevant consideration would be that the family should not be in a position to maintain themselves and the income of the breadwinner alone was the protector of the family.

9. If the family is able to lead their livelihood in the absence of the income earned by the breadwinner, then such family may not be eligible to secure employment on compassionate grounds. If this criteria is diluted, then the very scheme of compassionate appointment and its objectives are defeated. This is exactly the reason why extra- constitutional schemes of special appointments are given in a restricted manner so as to ensure only deserving families get the benefits and the scheme is not misused or abused so as to deprive the meritorious candidates of securing employment.

10. The ill-effects of this scheme are to be considered in a constitutional perspective. Equal employment in public employment is a constitutional mandate. Social justice is the philosophy enunciated under the constitution and is to be achieved by the State to ensure that every citizen gets equal opportunity in public employment. All public appointments are to be made under the constitutional scheme of appointments. Lakhs and lakhs of youth of our great Nation are longing to secure public employment through an open competitive process. They are working hard and awaiting recruitment notification from the Public Service Commissions and the Government. 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.

11. Article 335 of the Constitution of India denotes claims of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes to service and posts. The said Article enumerates that “the claims of the members of the Scheduled Tribes / Scheduled Castes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.

12. The constitution mandates even while providing public appointments to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe candidates, maintenance of efficiency of administration in making of such appointments is of paramount importance. That being the spirit of constitution, the scheme of compassionate appointment, if leading to an inefficiency in public administration, the scheme is to be revisited by the States and the Union so as to ensure the most deserving family alone has been provided with compassionate appointment in a restricted manner to protect the basic rights of the meritorious candidates, including the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes candidates, who are all aspiring to secure public employment through the constitutional scheme of appointments.

13. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a special consideration extended to the families of the deceased employee mostly on sympathy grounds and also to protect their livelihood. Therefore, the scheme must act in its real objective and not to provide one appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. However, in recent times, the scheme has been misconstrued or misinterpreted so as to secure public employment through this concessional scheme of appointments. Unless such attempts are thwarted, the very spirit of constitutional scheme of appointments are under threat.

14. 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.

15. The Courts are not expected to approach such issues on misplaced sympathy. The Court though considered such cases on individual facts, it is the duty bound to assess the mitigating factors so as to strike a balance and ensure that the constitutional mandates and rights of citizens in the society to secure public employment are protected and preserved. Therefore, the Courts are not expected to be carried away by misplaced sympathy on the ground that an employee died and therefore, give appointment to the legal heirs. The penurious circumstances prevailing in the family are of paramount importance for extending the scheme of compassionate appointment. Any routine orders passed by the Courts would not only offend the constitution but deny employment opportunity to meritorious candidates, who are all waiting for public employment.

16. In the present case, the facts would show that the 1st respondent / writ petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased employee's daughter. As per the scheme, the granddaughter of the deceased employee is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, cannot expand the scope of the scheme on misplaced sympathy. It will result in infringement of the rights of the meritorious candidates waiting for public appointments. That apart, such exercise of powers of judicial review would fall beyond the realm of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. For all these reasons, the writ order impugned in W.P.No 19487 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

1. The Executive Officer Kotagiri Town Panchayat Kotagiri The Nilgiris 643 217

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WA No. 419 of 2024 10-09-2026