Acceptance of compassionate appointment forecloses a subsequent claim to a higher post.

The petitioner’s father, a Post Deliveryman with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, died in harness on 20 May 2010.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as an Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI); his application was forwarded with favourable remarks.

Before it was decided, a 2012 amendment removed ATI from the posts available for compassionate appointment, and the petitioner was offered appointment as a Conductor.

He accepted the offer and joined on 18 July 2013.

After the Corporation’s guidelines again included ATI in 2013, he sought appointment to that post and filed this writ petition in 2015.

Whether the petitioner, having accepted and joined as a Conductor on compassionate grounds, could subsequently claim consideration for appointment as an ATI.

Whether the petitioner’s reliance on the rules applicable at the time of his father’s death entitled him to appointment as an ATI despite his acceptance of the Conductor post.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rules of public recruitment, intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial distress; it is a concession, not a vested right, and eligibility does not entitle an applicant to a post of choice or a higher post.

In State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, as applied in Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal, the Supreme Court held that once an applicant accepts and joins a post offered on compassionate grounds, the right to compassionate consideration is exhausted; a later claim for a higher post would amount to “endless compassion”.

The judgment also noted that compassionate-appointment norms prevailing on the date of consideration may govern the claim, as stated in the principles quoted from State of Karnataka v. V. Somyashree.

The petitioner had accepted the Conductor appointment without demur, joined in July 2013, and continued in service for almost two years before seeking appointment as an ATI.

Applying M. Jayabal and Umrao Singh, the Court held that his compassionate-appointment claim had been satisfied by the appointment he accepted; his qualifications and the earlier favourable processing of his ATI application did not create a right to reconsideration for a higher post.

Although the petitioner relied on the rules in force when his father died, the Court found that this did not overcome the consequence of his subsequent acceptance of the Conductor post.

The writ petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.