In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court has affirmed that compassionate appointments are not a means for career advancement. The court clarified that individuals appointed on compassionate grounds to alleviate family distress following the death of an earning member are not entitled to claim higher positions simply because they possess the necessary qualifications. A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan delivered this judgment, settling the legal position on the scope of compassionate appointments.
The ruling came in response to appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu administration against orders from the Madras High Court. The High Court had directed the state government to promote two individuals, who were initially employed as sweepers on compassionate grounds after their fathers' deaths, to the position of Junior Assistants. The appointees argued that they possessed the requisite qualifications for the higher post at the time of their initial appointment in 2007 and 2012. They approached the High Court in 2015 seeking the said promotions.
Overturning the Madras High Court's decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rules of appointment, intended to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship due to the sudden loss of their breadwinner. The court observed that these appointments, grounded in humanitarian considerations, should not be treated as a ladder for climbing the professional hierarchy.
Justice Bindal asserted that once a dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate grounds, their right stands exercised, and there remains no basis for seeking appointment to a higher post. The court reasoned that allowing otherwise would lead to a state of "endless compassion," undermining the principles of equality and equal opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court underscored that while an applicant appointed on compassionate grounds may be eligible for a higher post, it does not automatically grant them the right to be appointed to that post. Recruitment for other positions must adhere to the established rules and regulations applicable to all eligible candidates.
Furthermore, the court addressed the argument that others had been granted higher posts, clarifying that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. Wrongful conferment of a benefit on one individual cannot be the basis for similar relief to others. The court also noted that considerable delay in approaching the court weakens any claim.
The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments are a limited exception to the standard recruitment process, designed to alleviate immediate financial crises and not to provide a pathway for career advancement. The decision aims to maintain the integrity of the public employment system, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity for all candidates.
