Compassionate appointments must ensure parity and non-discrimination among similarly situated candidates possessing equivalent qualifications.

The applicant is the daughter of a deceased Master in the School Education Department who died in harness on 11.02.2016

Following her mother's death, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994.

Although she possessed B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualifications, she was appointed as a Lab Assistant on 26.04.2017

The applicant joined the post but subsequently filed a writ petition (later transferred to the Tribunal) alleging that similarly situated persons (private respondents 4 and 5) with comparable qualifications were appointed as Teachers

She contended that the respondents adopted a "different yardstick," violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The respondents argued that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a means to mitigate immediate financial hardship, and having accepted the post of Lab Assistant, the applicant could not claim a higher post

1. Whether the respondents' action of appointing the applicant to a lower post (Lab Assistant) while appointing similarly situated candidates to a higher post (Teacher) under the same compassionate appointment scheme constitutes arbitrary discrimination

2. Whether the applicant is estopped from seeking a higher post after having accepted and joined the lower post of Lab Assistant

The court primarily applied the provisions of SRO-43 of 1994 (Compassionate Appointment Rules)

The principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which establishes that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial relief and is not a vested right

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85 and State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 704, emphasizing that such appointments must strictly conform to the governing rules and are an exception to normal recruitment

Principle of "fairness and non-arbitrariness," holding that the State, as a model employer, cannot apply different yardsticks to similarly situated dependents under the same scheme

The Tribunal reasoned that while compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment, the State’s implementation of such a policy must remain non-arbitrary

The court noted that the respondents failed to provide a rational basis or any specific rule justifying why the applicant—who was educationally qualified for a teaching post—was assigned a lower post while others were appointed as Teachers

Regarding the plea of estoppel, the Tribunal held that a dependent facing financial distress after the death of a breadwinner often accepts a lower post out of "compulsion and survival" rather than a free waiver of legal rights

The court distinguished the general rule (that one cannot claim a post of choice) from the present case, which was based on "parity and equal treatment"

Since the department adjusted others as Teachers, denying the same to the applicant without valid reason was deemed hostile discrimination

It directed the respondents to treat the applicant as entitled to appointment/adjustment against the post of Teacher on parity with similarly situated candidates within 12 weeks

The applicant was granted notional seniority and notional pay fixation from the date the private respondents were appointed, though monetary benefits of the Teacher post will accrue prospectively from the date of actual adjustment

The Tribunal further ordered that if no vacancy is currently available, the applicant must be accommodated against the first available vacancy, with one post reserved in the interim to ensure compliance