In Brief
The appellant, a qualified candidate, sought appointment to a Peon position on compassionate grounds following his father's death. The State rejected his application, claiming that monetary benefits paid on his father's death—provident fund, gratuity, and leave encashment—disqualified him from compassionate appointment. However, the Court found the State's position internally inconsistent: while claiming a 2005 ban on such appointments, it had recently increased Group C and D compassionate appointment quotas from 5% to 10%, demonstrating ongoing policy commitment to compassionate recruitment. The Court held that monetary relief does not bar compassionate appointment and that the State's selective enforcement violated principles of fairness and equality. The appeal was allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.