Recruitment bans and financial crises do not bar appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.

The petitioner’s mother died in 2001 while serving as a worker for the 1st Respondent Corporation.

The petitioner applied for compassionate employment and was placed at Rank No. 3 in the waiting list for 'Junior Assistant' in 2012.

While awaiting permanent appointment, she was engaged on a daily wage basis in 2013, a role she continues to hold.

Despite the Corporation acknowledging vacancies (16 reported to PSC and 5 set apart for the compassionate scheme), her permanent appointment was denied via Ext.P18.

The Corporation contended that compassionate appointments had already exceeded the 50% quota of direct recruitment vacancies mandated by Ext.P9 Government Order and cited a general ban on recruitment due to financial crisis.

1. Whether a general ban on fresh recruitment due to financial crisis applies to appointments made under the Compassionate Employment Scheme?

2. Whether accepting a temporary daily-wage engagement precludes a candidate from claiming permanent appointment under a Compassionate Employment Scheme?

3. Whether the 1st Respondent is justified in denying appointment based on the 50% ceiling when the final cadre strength and vacancy positions are yet to be formally restructured?

The court applied the Compassionate Employment Scheme as regulated by Government Order GO(P) No. 32/2007/PLG (Ext.P9), specifically Clause 30(a), which stipulates that compassionate appointments must be set off against direct recruitment vacancies and confined within 50% of the total vacancies for direct recruitment.

It further relied on the judicial principles established by the Bombay High Court in Sunil Gundu Desai v. State of Maharashtra and Anusaya W. d/o Anil Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, holding that compassionate appointments are exemptions intended to mitigate financial destitution and are thus kept outside the purview of general recruitment bans.

The Court rejected the Corporation’s argument that the petitioner's temporary daily-wage work waived her right to compassionate appointment, noting the absence of any such undertaking in her appointment order.

Regarding the financial crisis and recruitment ban, the Court reasoned that compassionate appointments are not "new post creations" but essential humanitarian measures to alleviate family hardship, thus exempting them from general administrative bans.

Addressing the 50% quota limit, the Court found the Corporation’s data inconsistent, as the Respondent admitted it had not yet finalized its restructuring or quantified its exact vacancy position. The Court held that until a formal review of cadre strength is completed, the Corporation cannot conclusively deny a candidate based on an anecdotal excess of the 50% ceiling.

The Court set aside the denial of appointment and directed the 1st Respondent to complete the restructuring of its staff pattern and quantify the actual vacancies available under the compassionate quota as per Clause 30(a) of Ext.P9 within three months. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.