Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after significant delay as it defeats the object of immediate financial relief.

The petitioner’s father was a regularized 'Mali' in the Building Construction Department, Patna, who went missing on 01.12.1996 and was legally declared dead on 13.01.2003

At the time of the father's disappearance, the petitioner was one year old; by the declaration of death, he was seven

The petitioner's mother initially applied for compassionate appointment, but her application was marred by a criminal case regarding a forged residential certificate, which ended in her acquittal in 2013

Upon attaining majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 06.08.2013

The District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected his claim on 04.05.2016, citing the 20-year delay since the father went missing

1. Whether a dependent of a deceased employee is entitled to compassionate appointment upon attaining majority several years after the death/disappearance of the breadwinner

2. Whether the lapse of a significant period (20 years) negates the objective of providing "immediate succour" to a family in financial distress

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, intended only to alleviate immediate financial hardship

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301: establishes that a candidate cannot claim appointment years after attaining majority if the death occurred during their infancy

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138: holding that compassionate Georgie cannot be claimed after the crisis is over

Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu (2011) 13 SCC 42: emphasizes that appointments made many years later conflict with constitutional mandates

The court reasoned that the fundamental objective of compassionate appointment is to provide "immediate succour" to a family facing sudden financial crisis due to the death of an earning member

Applying the precedents of Jagdish Prasad and Umesh Kumar Nagpal, the court found that granting such an appointment after a two-decade lapse would treat compassionate appointment as an alternative mode of recruitment rather than an emergency measure

The court noted that the "financial crisis" is presumed to have passed given the extensive passage of time

It affirmed that compassionate appointment is not a vested right that can be exercised at any future date

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Committee’s decision to reject the petitioner's application was upheld