Compassionate appointment cannot be rejected solely for age without considering available age-relaxation powers.

The appellant, C.R. Pramod, sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death in harness of his brother, C.R. Pradeep, who was employed as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the respondent Corporation and died on 14 June 2024.

The appellant belonged to the Other Backward Classes, Category-IIIA, for which the applicable service regulations prescribed an upper age limit of 38 years.

His application was rejected by endorsement dated 25 March 2025 solely on the ground that he had exceeded the prescribed age limit by four months and three days.

The appellant challenged the endorsement in W.P. No. 17540/2025. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 18 November 2025.

Whether the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment could be rejected at the threshold solely because he had crossed the prescribed upper age limit, without examining his eligibility under the applicable compassionate appointment regulations?

Whether, upon the appellant otherwise satisfying the eligibility criteria and conditions for compassionate appointment, the competent authority was required to consider age relaxation under the applicable Recruitment Regulations, including Regulation 17?

Compassionate appointment was governed by the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997. Regulation 3 prescribed eligibility and Regulation 4 imposed conditions including financial crisis, age, qualification, availability of Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ vacancies, and appointment against a direct-recruitment vacancy.

Regulation 5 required the application to be made within one year of the employee’s death, while Regulation 8 made the other applicable service regulations relevant to compassionate appointment.

Regulation 17 of the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 1969 empowered the competent authority to relax the age requirement in appropriate individual cases where such relaxation was justified by the circumstances.

Relying on Canara Bank v. AjithKumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290, the Court applied the principle that where an applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria and conditions of appointment, and the competent authority possesses a power of age relaxation, the authority must thereafter consider whether such relaxation should be granted.

The impugned endorsement disclosed only one reason for rejection—exceeding the upper age limit—and did not record that the appellant was ineligible under Regulation 3 or had failed to satisfy the conditions under Regulation 4.

The Court held that the authority could not reject the application solely on the basis of age without first examining the appellant’s eligibility and the applicable conditions for compassionate appointment.

Since the appellant had exceeded the age limit by only four months and three days, and Regulation 17 conferred a power to relax age in appropriate cases, the competent authority was required to consider age relaxation if the appellant otherwise fulfilled the prescribed requirements.

However, the Court did not itself grant appointment or age relaxation; it directed a fresh determination after the appellant furnished the documents earlier called for by the respondents.

The Single Judge’s order dated 18 November 2025 and the rejection endorsement dated 25 March 2025 were set aside and quashed.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration.

The appellant was granted 15 days from receipt of the order to furnish the documents sought under Annexure-C.

Thereafter, the authority was directed to determine whether he satisfied Regulations 3 and 4 of the 1997 Regulations and, if so, to consider his request for age relaxation under the applicable Recruitment Regulations, including Regulation 17, within one month of receiving the documents.