Compassionate appointment cannot be downgraded from Class III to Class IV without informed consent.

The petitioner’s father, a regular Class-IV employee, died in harness on 22 January 2019. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, seeking a Class-III post of Clerk on the basis of his qualifications

His case was scrutinised and forwarded by the Director of Health Services, and was found fit for appointment as a Clerk on contract basis under the applicable policy and recruitment rules

However, on 23 March 2022, the petitioner was offered appointment on daily-wage basis against a Class-IV post, without being given an option regarding the relinquishment of his claim to a Class-III post

He joined the post on 26 March 2022 but represented on 24 May 2022 that he had neither sought nor consented to appointment against a Class-IV post and requested appointment as a Clerk.

The State contended that the petitioner had accepted the Class-IV appointment without protest and was consequently estopped from seeking a Class-III post. It further maintained that the Class-III compassionate-appointment quota had been exhausted and that the petitioner was appointed against a Class-IV post pursuant to a relaxation granted by the Government

During the proceedings, the petitioner produced orders showing that similarly situated dependants of deceased Class-IV employees had subsequently been appointed against Class-III posts on 25 April 2022

The Court admitted those documents on record.

Whether the petitioner’s acceptance and joining of the Class-IV post, offered without an informed option, barred him from claiming appointment against the Class-III post for which he had originally applied and was qualified

Whether the respondents acted contrary to the compassionate-appointment policy by converting the petitioner’s claim from Class-III to Class-IV without obtaining his consent

Whether the petitioner was discriminated against when similarly situated dependants were appointed against Class-III posts shortly after his appointment to a Class-IV post

The applicable compassionate-appointment policy permitted the dependant of a deceased Class-IV employee, if otherwise qualified, to be considered for appointment against the lowest rung of a Class-III post and not merely against a Class-IV post

Government Office Memorandum dated 24 January 2022 specifically required that persons who had applied for Class-III posts be given an option to be considered for Class-IV appointment; it further provided that their Class-III claim would cease only as a result of opting for the Class-IV post

Accordingly, administrative authorities could not unilaterally convert a candidate’s Class-III claim into a Class-IV appointment without obtaining an informed and voluntary option

The Court also applied the principles of non-arbitrariness and equal treatment in public employment, holding that similarly situated candidates could not be treated differently without a rational basis

Acceptance of an appointment obtained in circumstances of economic compulsion does not, by itself, create estoppel where the authority failed to provide the policy-mandated choice.

The Court held that the petitioner’s joining of the Class-IV post did not amount to a voluntary abandonment of his Class-III claim because the respondents had not informed him that acceptance of the Class-IV post would extinguish that claim

Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 January 2022 required the Department first to explain the alternative and its legal consequence, and then obtain the petitioner’s option. Instead, the Department unilaterally converted his claim and issued the Class-IV appointment

The State’s reliance on the petitioner’s acceptance was therefore rejected, particularly because the petitioner’s family had lost its breadwinner and he had no realistic bargaining power to refuse immediate employment

The subsequent appointment of similarly situated persons against Class-III posts on 25 April 2022 demonstrated that Class-III vacancies were available after the petitioner had been appointed against Class-IV

The Department also failed to satisfactorily explain why those candidates, whose approvals allegedly existed earlier, were appointed after the petitioner while he was denied similar treatment

Further, any delay in forwarding the petitioner’s case or in processing the relevant documents was attributable to the Department and could not operate to his disadvantage

The Court consequently found the petitioner’s treatment discriminatory and the Department’s action to be a colourable exercise of power.

The Court held that the respondents’ act of offering the petitioner appointment against a Class-IV post, without obtaining his informed option and while similarly situated persons were appointed against Class-III posts, was unlawful and discriminatory

The respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner against a Class-III post with effect from the date on which the similarly situated candidates named in Annexures P-19 and P-20 were offered such appointment

Consequential benefits were directed to operate from that date, subject to the petition having been filed in 2023

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.