Compassionate appointment cannot be cancelled without issuing show-cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing.

The appellant’s father, a government employee, died in 2023. Initially, respondent No. 1 (the elder son, Rakesh) was granted compassionate appointment on 28.02.2025

Subsequently, the mother of the parties alleged that Rakesh was not supporting her and requested that the appointment be given to the appellant (the younger son, Dilip)

Following a High Court direction in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 14141/2025) to consider the mother's representation, the CEO, Jila Panchayat cancelled Rakesh's appointment and granted it to Dilip on 01.07.2025 without hearing Rakesh

Rakesh challenged this in W.P. No. 26034/2025, which the Single Judge allowed on 12.02.2026, quashing the cancellation on the grounds of violation of natural justice

Dilip’s review petition was disposed of with a clarification that the authorities could proceed afresh after a proper hearing

Dilip then preferred this intra-court appeal

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the order dated 01.07.2025 regarding the cancellation of compassionate appointment.

Whether the lack of a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing to the first appointee vitiates the cancellation of a compassionate appointment.

principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, which requires that no person should be condemned unheard or deprived of a vested right without a fair opportunity to represent their case

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, regarding the maintainability of intra-court appeals

administrative discretion of the competent authority to grant or revoke compassionate appointments subject to statutory policy and procedural fairness

The Division Bench observed that the initial appointment granted to respondent No. 1 on 28.02.2025 created a right that could not be revoked without due process

It was undisputed that the order dated 01.07.2025, which cancelled Rakesh’s appointment and shifted it to the appellant, was passed without issuing a show-cause notice or affording Rakesh any opportunity of hearing

The Bench reasoned that the Single Judge correctly identified this as a violation of the principles of natural justice

the Single Judge did not decide the competing claims of the brothers on merits but merely restored the status quo ante to allow the competent authority to conduct a fresh, fair inquiry where all concerned parties could be heard

The Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the competent authority remains at liberty to take a fresh decision after granting a due opportunity of hearing to both the appellant and respondent No. 1. No order as to costs was made