Discretionary compassionate appointment must be exercised non-arbitrarily and equitably for candidates with higher educational qualifications.

The applicant, an Engineering Graduate (B.Tech), is the son of Late Smt. Sushma Devi, a Master Grade Teacher who died in harness during the COVID-19 pandemic

Following her death, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment under SRO-43/1994.

The respondents issued a communication dated 26.04.2022, requiring the applicant to submit an affidavit consenting to an appointment as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), a Class-IV post

The applicant challenged this, asserting that a Class-IV post was disproportionate to his high educational qualifications and that similarly situated candidates had been appointed to higher posts

The respondents maintained that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is restricted to providing immediate financial relief through lower-level posts

1. Whether the respondents’ insistence on the applicant accepting a Class-IV post, despite his higher educational qualifications and the availability of discretion under the rules, was arbitrary and discriminatory

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with other similarly situated candidates who were granted higher-grade appointments under SRO-43/1994

The Tribunal applied the provisions of SRO-43/1994, which governs compassionate appointments in J&K and permits the competent authority to consider appointments to higher non-gazetted posts based on eligibility

It relied on the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, which prohibit arbitrary state action and require equality in public employment

The Tribunal followed the precedent set in Bhavtej Singh Isher v. UT of J&K & Ors. (OA No. 1001/2021), which established that while compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment, the discretion to grant a higher post must not be exercised in a discriminatory or "hostile" manner when parity is established

The Tribunal reasoned that while compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate financial hardship rather than provide a vested right to a specific post, the statutory discretion granted under SRO-43/1994 must be exercised reasonably

The court noted that the applicant is a highly qualified Engineering Graduate and had specifically pleaded that other similarly situated individuals were given higher posts; the respondents failed to rebut this claim or provide a rational basis for the distinction

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ repeated insistence on a consent affidavit for a Class-IV post was "mechanical and predetermined," reflecting a "non-application of mind"

By forcing a highly qualified candidate into a Class-IV role without considering the rules' allowance for higher-grade appointments, the state acted as an "unreasonable" employer

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant to a suitable non-gazetted post higher than Class-IV, commensurate with his B.Tech qualification, effective from the date of the initial offer, with notional seniority but no back wages, to be complied with within eight weeks