Compassionate appointment granted beyond the prescribed policy period without relaxation confers no enforceable right.

The petitioner’s father, who was employed as a Mali in the Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur, died in harness on 30 August 2003.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 31 January 2008 and again on 22 February 2011, pursuant to the State Government’s executive instructions dated 13 January 2011, which permitted fresh applications in pending cases up to 31 December 2011.

The petitioner was appointed as a Kuli on 17 July 2015 and joined on 21 July 2015.

However, after the Local Audit Department raised an objection that the appointment had been made beyond the period prescribed for consideration and without any sanctioned relaxation, the Municipal Corporation cancelled the appointment on 8 January 2016.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking reinstatement, salary, and consequential reliefs.

Whether the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds, granted in 2015 on the basis of his application dated 22 February 2011, was contrary to the executive instructions dated 13 January 2011 because it was made beyond the prescribed period and without an order of relaxation.

Whether cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment without affording him a prior opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the impugned order dated 8 January 2016 was arbitrary, illegal, or otherwise liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It applied the executive instructions dated 13 January 2011, under which eligible pending applicants for compassionate appointment were permitted to submit fresh applications by 31 December 2011 and such applications were to be considered by 30 June 2012.

An appointment made contrary to the governing policy, in the absence of a competent authority’s order relaxing or extending the prescribed period, does not create an enforceable right to continue in service.

On natural justice, the Court relied on A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions v. Pindiga Sridhar, (2007) 13 SCC 352, which holds that breach of natural justice must involve demonstrable prejudice and that a hearing is unnecessary where the affected person could not have improved his case.

The Court found that the petitioner’s application dated 22 February 2011 was submitted within the permissible application period, but his claim was considered and appointment was granted only in 2015, well beyond the prescribed date of 30 June 2012.

The petitioner failed to establish that any competent authority had granted relaxation or extension of the prescribed period.

Consequently, the appointment was inconsistent with the governing executive instructions and did not confer an enforceable right to remain in service.

The subsequent audit objection therefore provided a valid basis for cancellation.

Although the petitioner alleged denial of natural justice, the Court held that no prejudice was demonstrated because the appointment itself was contrary to the applicable policy; accordingly, a prior hearing was not indispensable in the circumstances.

Its cancellation was therefore neither arbitrary nor illegal.

The challenge based on violation of natural justice was also rejected for want of demonstrated prejudice.

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and no reinstatement, salary, or other consequential relief was granted.