Compassionate appointment cannot be cancelled without objectively determining a sibling’s separate residence and financial dependency.

The petitioner’s father, an Upper Division Teacher, died in harness on 7 November 2022. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the State Government policy dated 29 September 2014 and was appointed as a Laboratory Teacher by order dated 10 June 2024; he joined on the same day. The appointment was subsequently cancelled on the ground that the petitioner’s elder brother was already employed in government service. The earlier cancellation order dated 5 July 2024 was set aside by the High Court for violation of natural justice, with a direction to reconsider the matter after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

During the reconsideration, the petitioner submitted documents—including a Samagra ID Card, electricity bill, property-tax receipt, ration card and Gram Panchayat certificate—to establish that his elder brother had been residing separately for more than ten years, had an independent family, and was not dependent on the deceased employee’s income. Despite these documents, the District Education Officer again cancelled the appointment through orders dated 31 December 2024 and 14 May 2025, principally observing that the petitioner had failed to establish the brother’s separate residence. The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the mere fact that the petitioner’s elder brother was employed in government service constituted an absolute bar to the petitioner’s compassionate appointment under the policy dated 29 September 2014, despite the petitioner’s assertion that the brother maintained a separate household and was financially independent?

Whether the competent authority properly reconsidered the petitioner’s case by objectively examining the documentary material and conducting an enquiry into the elder brother’s separate residence and financial dependency?

Whether the orders dated 31 December 2024 and 14 May 2025 were sustainable after the earlier cancellation order had been quashed for breach of natural justice?

The Court applied the State Government’s compassionate-appointment policy dated 29 September 2014, including Clause 4.1, under which appointment may generally be denied where a member of the deceased employee’s family is already in government service.

However, the Court held that the policy must be applied with reference to actual family dependency and cannot be enforced mechanically merely because of a blood relationship or government employment of a relative. It relied on the principles in State of M.P. v. Mehmood Hussain Mansoor, W.A. No.729/2013, decided 25 June 2014, and Ms. Karuna Bhatt v. State of M.P., W.A. No.866/2018, decided 28 February 2019, concerning the object of compassionate appointment and the relevance of actual dependency.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, objective consideration of relevant material, and the duty to pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where cancellation of an existing appointment entails serious civil consequences.

The Court found that the petitioner did not dispute his elder brother’s government employment but specifically disputed that the brother was part of, or financially dependent upon, the petitioner’s family. Since the petitioner produced several documents supporting separate residence and an independent household, the authority was required to examine those documents and determine the factual question of residence and dependency objectively.

Instead, the impugned orders merely reiterated that the petitioner had failed to prove separate residence, without explaining why the documents were insufficient or unreliable. No enquiry report, Panchanama, verification, local enquiry, statements of relevant persons, or other independent material existed to support the authority’s conclusion. The Court therefore held that the authority proceeded on assumption rather than verified factual findings and had not genuinely reconsidered the matter as directed earlier. Granting a hearing without meaningfully considering the petitioner’s representation and evidence did not satisfy natural justice.

The orders dated 31 December 2024 and 14 May 2025 were quashed and set aside as unsupported by proper enquiry and reasoned consideration. The respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order restoring/granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.