The Allahabad High Court, in a landmark decision rendered by Justice Ajay Bhanot in Writ-A No. 15450 of 2024 and connected matters, has held that appointments of teachers on compassionate grounds, though rooted in humanitarian concerns, cannot bypass constitutional obligations and statutory requirements. The Court dismissed petitions seeking mandamus for appointment as Assistant Teachers under Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013, citing their incompatibility with the constitutional scheme, particularly Articles 14, 16, and 21A, and the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by dependents of deceased government servants, including Shailendra Kumar, Shitesh Kumari, Anupam, Deep Mala Kushwah, and Anirudh Yadav. Each sought appointment as Assistant Teacher in basic education institutions on compassionate grounds under the Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013. These Government Orders allowed appointment to teaching posts, subject only to minimum eligibility criteria, without merit-based evaluation.
Petitioners’ Submissions
Counsel for the petitioners argued:
- The petitioners were entitled to compassionate appointments as teachers under the said Government Orders.
- Compassionate appointments, being exceptions to standard recruitment, need not adhere to constitutional requirements of merit or equality under Articles 14, 16, or 21A.
- Even if tested against constitutional provisions, the Government Orders do not violate them.
- Since petitioners fulfilled minimum qualifications, a mandamus should be issued to appoint them.
Respondents’ Stand
The State, represented by the Chief Standing Counsel and others, argued:
- Compassionate appointments are welfare measures, not a matter of right.
- The said Government Orders supplement Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999, which contemplates “suitable employment,” not merely eligibility-based appointments.
- Eligibility does not equate to merit or suitability.
- Teaching posts impact the fundamental rights of children to quality education, necessitating competitive and transparent recruitment.
Court’s Analysis
1. Constitution and Public Employment
Justice Bhanot emphasized that appointments to public posts must adhere to the constitutional mandate of equality and merit. The Court noted:
“Under the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, appointments to government posts have to be achieved by merit and not acquired by inheritance.”
Appointments bypassing open competitive selection violate these norms.
2. Compassionate Appointment – A Limited Exception
Referring to authoritative precedents such as Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., the Court held:
“Compassionate ground appointments are not intended to confer lasting social status… They are not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the open selection process.”
The purpose is limited to providing immediate succour to families facing sudden financial crisis due to the death of a breadwinner.
3. Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999
The Court underscored that Rule 5 mandates “suitable employment on a post,” which involves a multi-factorial assessment beyond mere eligibility. It clarified:
“Eligibility simply prescribes minimum qualifications… ‘Suitable employment’ is of a much wider ambit… eligibility in itself may not ensure suitability.”
4. Incompatibility with the Post of Assistant Teacher
In determining suitability under Rule 5, the Court placed emphasis on public purpose and institutional needs. It held:
“The right of children to quality education can only be realized if most meritorious candidates from open market are appointed as teachers.”
Allowing teacher appointments merely based on eligibility dilutes this right and undermines Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
5. Invalidity of Government Orders
The Court examined the Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 and concluded:
“The said Government Orders are ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21A of the Constitution.”
They create a virtual entitlement to teacher appointments on compassionate grounds without merit assessment, which the Court found impermissible.
Conclusion and Decision
The Allahabad High Court held that the appointment of Assistant Teachers on compassionate grounds, without merit-based selection, violates constitutional provisions and cannot be sustained. It declared:
“Grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in the post of Assistant Teachers is impermissible in law.”
All writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.
