Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied On Ground Of Delay When Initial Application Was Timely: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside rejection of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the grounds of the second application being time barred, opining that since no negative or positive order was passed by the State on the previous application by the petitioner that was filed within the time frame, rejection of second application was contrary to the settled norms.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that even though compassionate appointment could not be claimed as a right but when a public authority failed to discharge its duties in affair and transparent manner, the Court had no other option but to allow the petition.

It was the case of the petitioner that after his father's death, he applied for compassionate appointment in 2015 when, in a person interaction, it was informed to him that if he completed his graduate degree he could be offered a clerical post, without which he would be offered only a sub-staff post.

Based on this, the petitioner re-applied for compassionate appointment after obtaining graduation degree, but it was rejected by the State. It was the case of the State that earlier he was offered a post of sub-staff which was not accepted by the petitioner. Now another application was filed based on graduation, which was argued to be against the bank's policy.

It was submitted by the counsel of the petitioner that not a single record or order was put in place by the State to show that the petitioner was even offered a post which was rejected by him.

In this background, the Court took into account that pursuant to previous application in 2015 or after the personal interaction, no positive or negative order was passed by the bank. As per the records, the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment was rejected for the first and last time, on the second application only.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Jane Kaushik v Union of India to highlight that, “Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered constitutional mandate upon the public authorities and a theory that if a public authority was duty bound to discharge the public function in a particular manner and the liability is only to advance the goals of Constitution and if they failed to take any action, then it is omission on their part”.

The Court held that the first application was made well within time-frame and no record was placed on record to show that any job was sub-staff was offered to him. In this light, rejection of subsequent application was contrary to settled norms.

In this light, the petition was allowed, and the order rejecting the application was set aside. The State was directed to re-consider the case and appoint the petitioner on a suitable post within 90 days.

Title: Vibhorgolash v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

Click Here To Read/Download Order