A Family Member’s Government Service Disqualifies an Applicant Under the Applicable Compassionate Appointment Policy.

The petitioner’s father, a Patwari, died in harness on 10 March 2025.

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, but the competent authority rejected his claim on 5 August 2026 because his elder brother was already employed in government service.

The petitioner contended that his married elder brother lived separately and did not financially support the family; the State maintained that the brother’s government employment made the petitioner ineligible under the applicable policy.

Whether the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment when another member of the deceased employee’s family was already in government service.

Whether the brother’s separate residence and alleged lack of financial support justified interference with the rejection order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Compassionate appointment is governed by the policy applicable at the relevant time, and an authority must apply the eligibility conditions prescribed by that policy.

Where the policy disqualifies an applicant because a member of the deceased employee’s family is already in government service, the authority is not required to inquire whether that employee provides financial support to other family members.

The Court relied on State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur, WA No. 236 of 2022, decided 7 July 2023, which reiterated the Full Bench position on that point.

Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit relaxation of the policy merely on equitable grounds.

The authority considered the petitioner’s claim under the policy prevailing at the relevant time and found him ineligible because his elder brother was in government service.

Applying Umesh Thakur, the Court held that the brother’s separate residence and alleged lack of financial assistance did not require a further inquiry into dependency or support.

As the rejection conformed to the policy and no jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or illegality was shown, equitable considerations did not warrant intervention under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.