Compassionate appointment cannot override the prescribed minimum age for the post.

The respondent’s father died in 2012, when the respondent was approximately nine years old. After attaining majority on 15 January 2021, the respondent was granted compassionate appointment as a Laboratory Teacher on 8 February 2021.

The appointment was cancelled on 13 July 2021 because the respondent had not attained the prescribed minimum age of 21 years for that post; the cancellation order was not immediately challenged.

After attaining 21 years and acquiring B.Ed. and CTET qualifications, the respondent submitted a fresh representation in September 2024. On receiving no decision, he filed W.P. No. 29661 of 2024. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 26 August 2025 and directed relief in favour of the respondent.

The State’s writ appeal was initially disposed of with liberty to seek review; the review petition was dismissed on 15 July 2026. The State thereafter filed the present appeal, challenging both orders.

Whether the respondent could validly be appointed as a Laboratory Teacher on compassionate grounds when he had not attained the prescribed minimum age of 21 years?

Whether the respondent’s belated challenge to the cancellation order, filed after approximately three years and two months without explanation, was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches?

Whether, despite the invalid appointment to the post of Laboratory Teacher, the respondent was entitled to an opportunity to seek compassionate appointment to another post for which he possessed the requisite age and qualifications?

The Court applied the Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshanik Samvarg) Seva Sharte Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018, under which the minimum age for recruitment as a Laboratory Teacher is 21 years; executive circulars or compassionate-appointment policies cannot override statutory recruitment rules.

Relying on Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1997 SC 1446, the Court reiterated that executive instructions inconsistent with statutory rules have no legal force.

It further applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment, intended only to assist a bereaved family in overcoming the sudden financial crisis caused by the employee’s death; it is neither a source of recruitment nor a vested right enforceable after the crisis has passed.

The Court relied on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2025 (5) SCC 712, concerning immediacy, delay, laches and the absence of any vested right in compassionate appointment.

The Court also relied on State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal for the rule that unexplained and inordinate delay may disentitle a litigant from relief under Article 226.

The Court held that the respondent was not eligible for appointment as a Laboratory Teacher on 8 February 2021 because he was below the mandatory minimum age of 21 years.

Compassionate appointment could relax the regular recruitment process, but could not dispense with statutory eligibility requirements such as minimum age.

The cancellation order dated 13 July 2021 was therefore legally justified.

The respondent’s failure to challenge that order for three years and two months, coupled with his suppression of material facts concerning his father’s death, siblings and his mother’s eligibility, justified applying the doctrines of delay, laches and suppression of material facts.

Nevertheless, because the respondent had earlier been granted compassionate appointment—albeit improperly—to provide assistance to the bereaved family, the Court considered it appropriate to grant a limited further opportunity.

The respondent was permitted to submit a fresh application disclosing complete details of his siblings and explaining why no elder sibling or his mother had sought appointment.

The appeal was allowed. The orders dated 26 August 2025 in W.P. No. 29661 of 2024 and 15 July 2026 in R.P. No. 1170 of 2026 were set aside.

However, he was granted liberty to submit a fresh application for compassionate appointment with complete particulars regarding his siblings and his mother.

If found eligible, and if he consented, the State was directed to consider offering him a post—possibly a Class IV post—for which he possessed the requisite qualifications and minimum age as on 15 January 2021; otherwise, the application could be rejected.