After Clerk Offer, P&H HC Directs Haryana To Consider Martyr’s Daughter For Female Supervisor Appointment Under 2018 Policy

The petitioner’s father, a soldier in the Mahar Regiment, was killed during Operation Vijay on 6 July 1999 and declared a battle casualty.

Haryana’s 2014 policy limited compassionate appointments to feeder-cadre posts, but a 2018 policy provided for consideration of eligible family members for direct recruitment to Class II, III or IV posts, having regard to their qualifications and the applicable recruitment rules.

In October 2019, the petitioner applied for appointment to a Group C Female Supervisor post.

Her documents were verified and her case recommended, but in February 2020 the State offered her a Clerk post.

She sought consideration for a post matching her qualifications; the request was rejected, and she did not join as Clerk.

She challenged the rejection and sought consideration under the 2018 policy, relying also on appointments of other dependants to posts suited to their qualifications.

Clause 3(iv) of Haryana’s policy dated 28 September 2018 provides that eligible family members are to be considered for direct recruitment to Class II, III or IV posts, as applicable, with regard to their educational qualifications, eligibility criteria and the recruitment rules; the Class II provision is limited to cases where the martyr or battle casualty held a Class I or II post.

The Court relied on N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, holding that compassionate-appointment claims are considered under the norms prevailing on the date of consideration, not necessarily those in force on the date of death.

It also referred to Hans Raj v. State of Punjab and Captain Janmej Singh v. State of Punjab concerning appointments made in recognition of a war hero’s sacrifice, and the distinction between such appointments and ordinary compassionate appointments following death in service.

The Court’s review was exercised under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner’s application and the State’s decision post-dated the 2018 policy, so the Court held that her claim had to be considered under that policy.

The policy removed the earlier feeder-cadre restriction and required consideration of qualifications and recruitment rules; offering only a Clerk post did not address that requirement, particularly given the petitioner’s stated qualifications and the recommendation of her case.

The rejection communications gave no reasons, and the State’s affidavit acknowledged that other dependants had been appointed to posts according to their qualifications.

The State disclosed no rule or criterion justifying different treatment of the petitioner.

The Court set aside the impugned action and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment as Female Supervisor, a Group C post under the applicable Haryana service rules, or for another Class III post for which she was eligible, in accordance with law.

The Court directed consideration; it did not order her appointment to a particular post.