Compassionate Appointments in Public Service: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Rules

The case at hand deals with the issue of compassionate appointments in government services under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The Supreme Court had to determine whether appointments made under the old rules could be upheld despite amendments that imposed stricter conditions. The Court examined the extent of government discretion in reviewing past appointments and the eligibility criteria applicable to compassionate employment.

Compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the dependents of government employees who die in service. However, such appointments are an exception to the general rule of open competition for public employment and are subject to stringent criteria. The Court had to decide whether the amended rules, which set a deadline for applying for compassionate appointments, could be applied retrospectively to cancel past appointments that did not comply with the new rules.

Background of the Case

The appellants in this case were dependents of deceased government employees who had been granted compassionate appointments. However, their appointments were later revoked when it was found that they did not meet the eligibility criteria under the amended rules. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court upheld the government’s decision, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

The amendments in question, which came into effect on April 1, 1999, changed the eligibility criteria for minors applying for compassionate appointments. Under the previous rules, a minor could apply within one year of attaining majority. The amendments, however, required that a minor must apply within one year of the death of the government employee and must have already attained the age of eighteen at the time of application.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The appellants argued that:

• They were appointed legally and had been working for years without any misconduct.
• The rule requiring minors to apply within one year of their parent’s death should not be applied retrospectively to cancel their appointments.
• Rule 5, which governs compassionate appointments, is procedural rather than mandatory, meaning that their appointments should still be valid.
• The government should not be allowed to cancel their appointments when they had not misrepresented any facts in their applications.
• Since their applications were processed and approved under the older rules, their employment should not be affected by later amendments.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Karnataka government countered by arguing:

• Compassionate appointments must strictly adhere to the prevailing rules at the time of application.
• The appellants did not meet the eligibility criteria since they had not applied within one year of their parent’s death.
• Compassionate appointments are an exception to the general recruitment process and must be interpreted narrowly.
• The government has the authority to review and rectify past mistakes, including the cancellation of appointments that were made in violation of rules.
• The amended rules supersede previous regulations, and all applications must comply with the new provisions.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the rules governing compassionate appointments and made the following key observations:

“The norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application.”

The Court noted that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a right and must be granted strictly in accordance with the rules:

“Appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule.”

Key Legal Precedents Considered

The Court relied on several important judgments to arrive at its decision:

• State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (2010): This case established that no candidate has a vested right to compassionate appointment and that applications should be considered based on the rules in force at the time of consideration.
• Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das (2008): The Court ruled that compassionate appointments are concessions, not rights, and must comply with all regulatory conditions.
• MCB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh (2014): The Court reiterated that the applicable rules at the time of consideration should determine eligibility.
• Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015): In contrast, this case held that changes in policy should not retrospectively affect applications that were already pending.

Final Judgment

Based on these legal precedents, the Supreme Court ruled that the Karnataka government was correct in canceling the appellants’ appointments. The Court stated:

“Since no infirmity is found in the impugned judgments, the appeals are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed.”

The Court clarified that while compassionate appointments provide relief to the families of deceased employees, they cannot override the principle of equal opportunity in public employment.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for government employment policies:

• Future compassionate appointments must strictly comply with the rules in effect at the time of application consideration.
• The government retains the right to review and revoke appointments that were granted in violation of prevailing rules.
• Compassionate appointments remain an exception to the standard recruitment process and cannot be claimed as a right.
• The ruling provides clarity on the retrospective application of amended rules, reinforcing that rule changes can be enforced even after an appointment has been made.

The judgment reaffirms that compassionate employment is a privilege granted under strict conditions rather than an automatic entitlement. By upholding the Karnataka government’s authority to cancel ineligible appointments, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that government employment must be governed by clear and consistent rules.

Petitioner Name: N.C. Santhosh.
Respondent Name: State of Karnataka & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A. S. Bopanna, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 04-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: N.C. Santhosh vs State of Karnataka & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category