Public Appointments To Victims Of Tragedies Dehors Service Rules Violate Articles 14 And 16 OF The Constitution

Three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the Government of Tamil Nadu from granting public employment to the next of kin of 41 victims of the "Karur stampede"

The State issued G.O.Ms.No.544 on 06.07.2026, granting appointments to 32 individuals on compassionate grounds

The petitioners argued these appointments violated Articles 14 and 16, especially since an ex gratia payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs had already been disbursed

The Court allowed a distribution function to proceed on 10.07.2026 only on the condition that employment would be temporary and subject to judicial review

1. Whether a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in service matters when questioning the validity of public appointments

2. Whether the Court can exercise its power under Article 226 to treat a Mandamus petition as a Certiorari to strike down a Government Order not specifically challenged in the prayer

3. Whether the grant of public employment to victims of a tragedy, via executive power, violates the constitutional mandate of equality and established rules for compassionate appointment

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment

The High Court's power under Article 226 is plenary and not bound by rigid technicalities regarding the "moulding of relief" (Dwarka Nath v. ITO; Union of India v. Bali Ram)

Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025), which established that compassionate appointments are exceptions to equality rules, must strictly follow existing schemes, and require proof of indigence

Article 162, noting that executive power is subject to the provisions of the Constitution

The Court first dismissed the maintainability objection, holding that while PILs are generally barred in service matters involving private disputes, they are maintainable when challenging a "larger cause" involving the arbitrary distribution of public offices as largesse

The Court observed that unlike "fallen war heroes" or victims of "State excess" (e.g., Sterlite shooting), the Karur victims had not been proven to be in indigent circumstances following the receipt of Rs. 10 Lakhs ex gratia

The Court reasoned that bypass-entry appointments for one group of victims directly infringe upon the rights of those already on the official waiting list for compassionate appointment

The Court found G.O.Ms.No.544 lacked subjective satisfaction regarding penury and violated the State’s own guidelines (G.O.Ms.No.18, 2020)

It emphasized that public employment must be earned and cannot be thrown away as a largesse by the State under Article 162

The appointments were in direct violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; those granted employment could not claim vested interest as the appointments were made expressly subject to judicial review before the disbursement of the first salary