The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts and joins a compassionate appointment, they cannot seek a subsequent, higher-grade compassionate appointment after acquiring additional educational and training qualifications. Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Sultanpur, which had rejected a petitioner’s representation seeking a promotion-like compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) after initially being appointed as a Peon. The Court ruled that allowing multiple compassionate appointments would lead to “endless compassion” and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dileep Kumar Jaiswal, is the son of late Raja Ram Jaiswal, who died in harness on May 26, 2003, while working as an Assistant Teacher at Mustquim Inter College, Gyanipur, Sultanpur. Following his father’s demise, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment.
At the time of his application, the petitioner held a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree. Since he did not possess the training qualifications required for an teaching post, he was appointed as a Peon (a Class IV post) at Ramkali Balika Inter College, Sultanpur, by the DIOS, Sultanpur, via an order dated January 24, 2004. He joined the post on January 30, 2004.
Prior to joining, on January 29, 2004, the petitioner submitted a letter to the DIOS claiming appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Over the next few years, the petitioner acquired additional qualifications, including a Master of Arts (M.A.) in English and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.).
On July 10, 2007, the petitioner submitted an application to the Manager of the institution through the Principal, seeking appointment as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds based on his newly acquired qualifications. The Principal forwarded the application with no objection. Subsequently, the Committee of Management of Ramkali Balika Inter College resolved on July 16, 2007, to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher and referred the matter to the DIOS, Sultanpur, for approval under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
The petitioner then submitted a representation to the DIOS on September 19, 2007, which was rejected by the DIOS on October 17, 2007. This rejection order was challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition, wherein he sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the rejection, and a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as an Assistant Teacher in the L.T. Grade cadre on compassionate grounds and pay his salary.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shailesh Kumar, argued that:
- Regulations 103 to 107 of Chapter III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, read with Section 3 of the Act of 1982, provide for compassionate appointments to the post of Assistant Teacher.
- Under Regulation 103, a family member of a deceased teacher is entitled to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Trained Graduate Grade, provided they possess the requisite academic and training qualifications and are otherwise fit.
- Under Regulation 105, the District Committee is the competent authority to deal with selections for compassionate appointments. Therefore, the decision taken independently by the DIOS, Sultanpur, was without jurisdiction and non est in law.
- Following the promotion of an L.T. Grade Teacher, Smt. Girish Kumari Jaiswal, to the post of Lecturer in Sociology, a vacant post of Assistant Teacher had arisen, against which the petitioner should have been appointed.
- The petitioner relied on the Director of Education (Madhyamik), Lucknow’s order dated March 22, 1996, and a reminder letter dated September 22, 1997, regarding compassionate appointments.
- The petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Anjani Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Others (Special Appeal No. 955 of 2007, decided on November 28, 2007), where a candidate appointed to a Class IV post was subsequently directed to be appointed to a Class III post.
For the Respondents (State):
The learned Standing Counsel for the State opposed the petition, arguing that:
- The petitioner was appointed as a Peon (Class IV post) on January 24, 2004, when his qualification was merely a graduate degree (B.A.). At that stage, he lacked the professional training qualifications (B.Ed.) required for the post of Assistant Teacher.
- The petitioner was given a Class IV post in a different institution under Regulation 106 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (amended via notification dated February 2, 1995) because no vacant post was available in the institution where his father had worked.
- The petitioner accepted the Class IV appointment, thereby consummating his right to compassionate appointment.
- Having accepted the benefit of compassionate appointment on a Class IV post in accordance with his qualifications at the time, the petitioner cannot claim a compassionate appointment a second time on a higher post after subsequently acquiring higher qualifications.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court identified the core issue as: “whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher after acquiring higher qualification subsequent to his appointment on compassionate grounds.”
Constitutional Validity and Scope of Compassionate Appointment
The Court observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equal opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court explained:
“Appointing a person to public employment under the State or its instrumentalities merely on the basis of relationship with a deceased government servant would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it would deprive society at large of an equal opportunity to apply for and seek selection to the post in question.”
It noted that the exception is justified only by the immediate financial need and dependency arising from the sudden death of the breadwinner:
“The exception is, therefore, founded not merely on the existence of a family relationship, but on dependency and financial need arising from the death of the wage earner during service.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others (1994) 4 SCC 138, reproducing Paragraph 2:
“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased… The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”
Consummation of the Right to Compassionate Appointment
The Court addressed whether a second consideration for a higher post can be permitted after the first option has been exercised and joined. It referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh (1994) 6 SCC 560, quoting Paragraph 8:
“Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’.”
The Court distinguished the division bench judgment in Anjani Pratap Singh relied upon by the petitioner. It noted that in Anjani Pratap Singh, a recommendation for a Class III post had already been made at the time of the initial compassionate appointment, but the department mistakenly gave a Class IV post. In contrast, the petitioner in the present case lacked the B.Ed. qualification at the time of his father’s death and initial appointment in 2004, and was thus granted a Class IV appointment in accordance with his existing qualifications, which he accepted.
The Court also relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in The Director of Town Panchayat and Others v. M. Jayabal and Another (Civil Appeal No. 12640-12643 of 2025, decided on December 12, 2025), citing Paragraph 12:
“Therefore, such appointment which is arising out of exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/she is eligible for such post.”
The Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Court held that a compassionate appointment is meant to alleviate sudden financial distress and cannot be claimed repeatedly as a promotional avenue. The Court stated:
“…this Court is of the considered view that once a dependent of a deceased employee is granted compassionate appointment, there cannot be second/further consideration for appointment to a higher post on compassionate ground.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the order dated October 17, 2007, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur, did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dileep Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thr. Secy Education and 3 Ors
- Case No.: WRITA No. 7331 of 2007
- Bench: Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
- Date: 15.05.2026
