Compassionate appointment cannot exceed prescribed percentage cap of sanctioned cadre strength despite existence of vacancies.

The petitioner’s father, a Peon in the Civil Court at Banka, died in harness on July 23, 2016

In September 2016, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, claiming to have no source of income

Her application was rejected by the District Appointment Committee via Order No. 60/2023 dated April 19, 2023

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff Rules, 2022, provide for a 5% vacancy quota for compassionate appointments, whereas her application was unfairly rejected based on a 3% cap on sanctioned strength

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was legally sustainable in light of the High Court’s policy and the existing vacancies

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the 5% quota under the 2022 Rules despite her father's death occurring in 2016

The court applied the administrative policy of the Patna High Court communicated via letter dated January 04, 2016, which mandates that compassionate appointments must not exceed a 3% ceiling of the total sanctioned strength of the relevant cadre

The Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2017 and 2022, noting that the policy in existence at the time of the employee's death is the governing standard for compassionate claims

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s eligibility must be determined by the policy in effect at the time of her father’s death in 2016

Under the applicable High Court policy (Annexure R/3-A), a strict 3% cap on the sanctioned strength of the cadre was in place for compassionate appointments

Evidence showed that the sanctioned strength for the Class IV (Peon) cadre in the Banka Judgeship was 71, meaning the maximum number of compassionate appointees allowed was 2.13 (rounded to 2). Since 11 compassionate appointees were already serving in that cadre, the court found that the District Appointment Committee had no vacant posts available under the quota to accommodate the petitioner

The court found the application lacked merit because the right to compassionate appointment is not an absolute right but is subject to policy restrictions and vacancy availability. The writ petition was dismissed