The Chhattisgarh High Court, relying on binding Supreme Court authorities, restates that compassionate appointment is not an alternative recruitment avenue nor a right to a specific position; it is an exception made to provide immediate succor to families of deceased employees. The ruling affirms the existing chain of Supreme Court precedents and has high precedential utility in compassionate appointment matters for public service across Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/7860/2022 of MANISH KHUNTE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010351292022 |
| Date of Registration | 10-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh High Court and its subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Public Employment; Compassionate Appointment |
| Questions of Law | Whether a candidate can claim compassionate appointment to a particular post based on educational qualification. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 661; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on settled principles from Supreme Court precedents stating that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment, but an exception to the general rule meant to meet sudden financial need; no right exists to claim appointment to a specific post or class. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s father died in harness while serving as Assistant Engineer; petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment as Sub Engineer, but was appointed as Assistant Grade-III. A prior writ had directed reconsideration, but his subsequent representation was rejected, leading to this petition. |
| Citations | (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 661; (2012) 11 SCC 307 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in analogous public employment and compassionate appointment matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor can it be claimed for a specific post, regardless of educational qualifications.
- Cites directly and applies Supreme Court’s ratio, underscoring that only consideration is required, not appointment to a post of choice.
- Establishes that if the competent authority has already appointed on a suitable post as per policy, courts will decline to interfere further.
- This precedent can be directly cited to counter writs seeking compassionate appointments to particular posts on the basis of higher qualifications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by noting settled law: Compassionate appointment is intended only to provide immediate financial relief to families of deceased employees, not to reward with positions of choice.
- The Supreme Court’s decisions in Ramesh Kumar Sharma (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 661 and Shashank Goswami (2012) 11 SCC 307 were cited, both holding that no individual has a vested right to a particular post through compassionate grounds.
- The court reproduced key paragraphs clarifying that compassionate appointment is an exception to open, merit-based recruitment, designed merely to offset sudden financial hardship—not to bestow advantageous appointments.
- The court found it was undisputed that the petitioner had already received a compassionate appointment as Assistant Grade-III; his representation for appointment as Sub Engineer was lawfully considered and properly rejected.
- The court concluded that there was no basis to interfere, following the chain of Supreme Court precedents.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought quashing of the rejection order and appointment as Sub Engineer based on his Diploma in Civil Engineering and prior representations.
- Argued that the department should appoint him to a post commensurate with his educational qualifications.
Respondent (State):
- Submitted that no applicant has a vested right to compassionate appointment to a particular post, regardless of educational qualifications.
- Argued the appointment to Assistant Grade-III was in accordance with policy and thus just, warranting no interference.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s father, an Assistant Engineer, died in harness on 23-11-2020. The petitioner, possessing a Diploma in Civil Engineering, applied for compassionate appointment as Sub Engineer, but was instead appointed as Assistant Grade-III. After his representation for the Sub Engineer post was rejected, he filed a writ petition for reconsideration; however, the department maintained its position, prompting the present challenge to the impugned order.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment discusses service rules and policies governing compassionate appointments, referencing the constitutional articles underlying open and merit-based recruitment (Articles 14 and 16), but clarifying that compassionate appointment is an exception, strictly limited to immediate financial need. The interpretation is narrow—no entitlement to posts of choice, regardless of qualification.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations are reported in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court precedent on the scope and limits of compassionate appointments.
Citations
- State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 661
- Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307