Authorities must assess indigence before rejecting compassionate appointment claims solely on age grounds.

The petitioner’s mother, an Anganwadi Assistant at Kasapura village, died while in service on 16 November 2025.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20 November 2025.

The authorities rejected her application by endorsement dated 31 March 2026, stating that she exceeded the applicable age limit.

She challenged the endorsement under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking its quashing and appointment on compassionate grounds

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s compassionate-appointment application solely on the ground that she exceeded the prescribed age limit could stand without reconsideration of her circumstances under the applicable principles

Whether the appropriate relief was to direct appointment or to remit the application for fresh consideration

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary recruitment process and is intended to provide relief to dependants facing genuine indigence following an employee’s death in service; it is not an inheritable right or an alternative source of recruitment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, as considered in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., requires assessment of the family’s financial circumstances and other eligibility criteria; consideration of age relaxation arises only if the claimant satisfies the scheme’s other requirements, including indigence and suitability.

The Court also relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Saroja v. Managing Director, which supported reconsideration of an age-based rejection in light of the circumstances and applicable principles

The endorsement rejected the petitioner’s claim because she was over the prescribed age limit, but the Court found that the application required fresh consideration under the principles governing compassionate appointment.

In particular, the authority had not assessed the claim in the manner required by the Supreme Court’s discussion of indigence and the sequence for considering age relaxation.

Following Saroja, the Court set aside the endorsement and remitted the matter rather than directing appointment, leaving the authority to reconsider the application afresh in accordance with law

The endorsement dated 31 March 2026 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the respondent authority for fresh consideration in light of Saroja v. Managing Director, within eight weeks from the date of the order