Allahabad High Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment as Exception to General Recruitment Process
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment emphasizing that compassionate appointment should be treated as an exception to the standard recruitment process. In a ruling that underscores the humanitarian aspect of such appointments, the court stated that undue reliance cannot be placed on recruitment rules to undermine the core objective of providing relief to families in distress.
Court Directs BHU to Reconsider Candidate's Plea Within One Month
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla has directed the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) authorities to make a fresh decision on a candidate's application for compassionate appointment. The university has been instructed to complete this process within one month, ensuring compliance with legal provisions.
Key directive from the court: BHU must consider the candidate's claim without strictly applying the age limit specified in the recruitment rules. Instead, the university should exercise the discretion allowed under the compassionate appointment rules for age relaxation.
Background of the Case
The case originated when the respondent's sister passed away while employed at Banaras Hindu University. Following her sister's demise, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment but faced rejection. Challenging this decision, she approached the court seeking relief.
Initially, a single-judge bench ruled in her favor, directing BHU to reconsider her application. The bench specifically ordered that her plea should not be treated as time-barred and that recruitment rules should not be rigidly enforced in this context.
BHU's Appeal and Court's Observations
Banaras Hindu University filed a special appeal, arguing that its compassionate appointment rules incorporate the standard recruitment rules, which set an age limit of 18 to 33 years. This includes a three-year relaxation for OBC candidates, a category to which the petitioner belongs. The university contended that the petitioner was 37 years old at the time of her sister's death, exceeding the maximum permissible relaxation.
In its order dated January 16, the court made crucial observations. It noted that while compassionate appointment rules allow for age relaxation "wherever found necessary," the recruitment rules impose stricter limits. However, the court highlighted the fundamental difference between the two sets of rules.
"While seeking appointment by competing at a public examination the Recruitment Rules apply providing for a different principle to provide equal opportunity to all citizens, the Compassionate Rules and such provisions wherever they exist, aim to address the sudden financial hardships that arise owing to the loss of sole breadwinner of a family. Therefore, to us, no undue reliance may be placed on the provisions of Recruitment Rules to defeat the object of the Compassionate Rules."
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments are designed to alleviate immediate financial crises faced by families who lose their primary earners. By prioritizing the humanitarian intent over procedural rigidity, the court has set a precedent that could influence similar cases across educational institutions and government bodies.
The decision underscores the need for authorities to balance regulatory frameworks with empathetic considerations, ensuring that compassionate appointment schemes truly serve their intended purpose of providing timely support to bereaved families.
