In Brief
The State of Himachal Pradesh rejected the respondent's application for compassionate appointment as a Peon, citing that his brother was already employed in a state undertaking. The High Court set aside the rejection, reasoning that the brother lived separately. The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot rewrite a state's compassionate appointment policy through judicial review. The policy clearly stipulates that when one family member is employed in government service, employment assistance is denied to other members, with an exception only for widows. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is a matter of policy discretion, not a legal right, and reversed the High Court's direction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.