Acceptance of Class-IV Compassionate Appointment Extinguishes Legal Claim for Subsequent Upgradation to Class-III Post.

The petitioner’s father, a government servant, passed away, leading the petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment. On September 26, 2014, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended him for a Class-III post.

However, due to the non-availability of vacancies in the Class-III cadre at that time, the petitioner was offered a Class-IV post, which he voluntarily accepted and joined.

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to rectify his appointment to a Class-III post based on the original 2014 recommendation and to ensure parity with other candidates who were appointed to Class-III posts.

1. Whether an appointee who has voluntarily accepted and joined a Class-IV post on compassionate grounds retains a vested right to seek a later conversion to a Class-III post based on an initial committee recommendation.

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not a right to a specific post but a welfare measure to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family. Once an individual exercises their option and accepts an appointment in a particular cadre, the claim for compassionate appointment stands fully exhausted and satisfied.

The court also distinguished between the right to initial appointment versus the right to future "promotion" governed by service rules and eligibility.

The Court reasoned that although the Committee initially recommended the petitioner for a Class-III post, the petitioner was not coerced into joining the lower cadre. By voluntarily opting for and joining the Class-IV post due to the lack of Class-III vacancies, the petitioner’s legal "right" to compassionate appointment was fulfilled.

The Court held that there is no contemplation in law for the post-facto conversion of a cadre once the appointment process is complete and the service has commenced. The petitioner cannot claim the higher post as a "matter of right" simply because of a prior recommendation, as the vacancy situation at the time of appointment dictated the offer, which the petitioner accepted.

The Court clarified that while the petitioner cannot demand a Class-III appointment based on the original recommendation, he remains eligible for future promotion to higher posts in accordance with the relevant service rules and availability of promotional avenues. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority specifically for promotional consideration.