In a significant judgment that reinforces gender equality and social justice, the Kerala High Court has upheld a remarried woman's right to compassionate appointment in a government-aided school, stating that denial of this statutory right would amount to a travesty of justice.
Court's Landmark Ruling on Compassionate Appointment
The Kerala High Court bench led by Justice N Nagaresh delivered this progressive verdict on Wednesday, November 13, 2025, while allowing the plea of a woman who had been denied compassionate appointment following her remarriage. The court emphasized that for teachers in government-aided schools in Kerala, compassionate appointment constitutes a valuable statutory right rather than merely a benefit based on executive instructions.
The judgment specifically addressed Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which mandates that the manager of an aided school must provide employment to a dependent of a school teacher who dies while in service. The court described this right as a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily denied.
Case Background and Legal Arguments
The legal battle began when the petitioner's husband, a teacher in a government-aided school, passed away in August 2017 while still in service. The woman applied for compassionate appointment in December 2017 under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, which the school manager initially acknowledged.
Due to the unavailability of suitable vacancies at that time, the woman was assured appointment when a position became available. During this period, her family pension was discontinued, leaving her as the sole caregiver for her aged mother.
In 2018, the woman remarried, and in 2024, she applied for the vacant position of 'office attendant' in the same school. However, the school manager issued a letter in January 2025 declaring her ineligible for compassionate appointment specifically because of her remarriage.
Legal Battle and Final Judgment
During court proceedings, the woman's legal counsel argued that as a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, her remarriage did not disqualify her from receiving compassionate appointment. They emphasized that she remained the single daughter responsible for caring for her aged mother despite her marital status.
The school manager's counsel countered that since the petitioner had remarried a government employee, she had lost her status as a widow and therefore became ineligible for compassionate appointment. Additional technical objections were raised regarding the application format and missing dependency certificate.
Justice Nagaresh rejected these arguments, observing that the petitioner's circumstances as the sole caregiver for her aged mother made denial of employment particularly unjust. The court directed that the woman be appointed to either the existing vacancy or the next available position in the school.
This judgment sets an important precedent for interpreting compassionate appointment rules in Kerala, particularly regarding the rights of women who remarry after losing their spouses. The court's recognition of compassionate appointment as a statutory right rather than a discretionary benefit strengthens the legal foundation for such claims in government-aided educational institutions across the state.
