Recruitment Rules Can't Defeat Object Of Compassionate Appointment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general process of recruitment and undue reliance cannot be placed on the recruitment rules to defeat the object of compassionate appointment.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“Suffice to note that the Recruitment Rules are in furtherance of the requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution of India whereas Compassionate Rules are an exception to those Rules and are protected, for reasons of the special purpose of their incorporation. To the extent the exceptional rules provide room for larger discretion to be exercised-to address the spirit of the Compassionate Rules, their full operation may not be cut short by unduly reading the provisions of the Recruitment Rules that have no bearing on the purpose of the Compassionate Rules.”

It further held,

“In face of two conflicting provisions, the more specific provision arising under the Compassionate Rules, which has a direct bearing on and that seeks to fulfill the object of the Compassionate Rules would apply notwithstanding the contrary import of the Recruitment Rules.”

Petitioner-respondent's sister died while working in Banaras Hindu University. Petitioner approached the Court against rejection of her application for grant of compassionate appointment. The writ Court allowed the plea and directed the University to reconsider petitioner's application without treating it as time barred and without applying the recruitment rules.

Against this order, the University filed an intra-court appeal on grounds that the rules pertaining to compassionate appointment in the University include the applicability of the recruitment rules and in the recruitment rules the age prescribed in 18 to 33 years, inclusive of 3 year relaxation of OBC (which the petitioner belonged to). It was pleaded that petitioner was 37 years old at the time of her sister's death which was beyond the maximum permissible relaxation.

It was also pleaded that the age relaxation was only meant for widowed spouse or divorcees, which was not a case of the petitioner.

The Court noted that the Executive Council of the University by its resolution ECR No.204 dated 31.05.2003 had stated that the age relaxations in compassionate appointments will be governed by the recruitment rules.

The Court observed that the compassionate appointment rules included sister of an unmarried employee as a valid applicant for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, it was observed that though the compassionate appointment rules provided for age relaxation beyond the prescription "wherever found to be necessary", the recruitment rules provide hard limits for relaxation of age.

Holding that in case of conflicting provisions, weightage should be given to the one which achieves the purpose of compassionate appointment, the Court held,

“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. At the same time, if age relaxation as contemplated under both Rules is given free play that is one in the realm governed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the other to the exception thereto, there would be no conflict between the two sets of rules.”

The Court held that the resolution of the Executive Council, as stated above, had no force unless the statutory rules governing compassionate appointment were amended. It held that the decision of the Executive Council was unenforceable as it was contrary to the compassionate appointment rules.

Accordingly, the Court held that extending the benefit of age relaxation beyond prescription only to widows, divorcees of deceased employees, and their wards was uniformed as it presumed that other categories of dependents would not face hardship in lieu of the unfortunate demise of the employee. The Court held that such decision of the Executive Council was impermissible.

“Compassionate Appointment by very nature looks to heal the extreme financial hardships that arise on the family of an unsuspecting employee for reason of sudden death of such employee. It is therefore, not permissible to assume that merely because the dependent family members of such a deceased employee would be of age more than the upper age prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, they would face no financial hardships or would not merit compassionate consideration, as a class. It defies logic and plain common sense. If accepted it may lead to absurd results and may in fact defeat the very object of the Compassionate Rules.”

Though the Court agreed with the view of the writ Court that age relaxation was to be considered even in case of the petitioner, based on her hardship, the Court did not agree with inapplicability of the recruitment rules to such appointments on deciding eligibility.

Accordingly, the Court directed the University to reconsider petitioner's claim without applying the age limit prescribed in the recruitment rules but as per the discretion of relaxation provided in the compassionate appointment rules.

Case Title: Banaras Hindu University And 4 Others v. Nameirakpamshangbanabi Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 33 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 820 of 2025]

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 33

Click Here To Read/Download Order