Legal Provisions Involved: Compassionate Appointment Policy of Madhya Pradesh; Articles 14, 16 and 39 of the Constitution of India

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Facts

Harpal Singh was appointed to a Class-III post on compassionate grounds after the death of his father, who was a peon with the Board. His appointment required him to pass the Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) within a prescribed time. Even after an extension, he failed to clear the test, leading to termination of his services. He approached the High Court, which directed the authorities to consider him for a lower Class-IV post that did not require CPCT. The employer challenged this direction before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Provisions

Compassionate Appointment Policy of Madhya Pradesh; Articles 14, 16 and 39 of the Constitution of India

Issues Raised

Whether a person removed from a higher post can be considered for a lower post under the compassionate appointment scheme?

Arguments of the Case

The employer argued that the policy did not permit such adjustment and that it would violate equality in public employment. Harpal Singh argued that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to protect the family from financial hardship.

Judgement

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order. It held that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure and should not be applied rigidly. Allowing consideration for a lower post within the same scheme does not violate policy or constitutional principles and helps achieve the scheme’s true purpose.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.