Submission of forged educational certificates for compassionate appointment disentitles candidate from government service and precludes further consideration.

The petitioner’s father, a Chief Reservation Supervisor, died in harness on 20.06.2019

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 12.07.2019, submitting educational certificates including a B.Com degree from Shridhar University

Upon verification, the University Registrar confirmed the degree was fake and the petitioner was never a student

Consequently, the Railway Administration rejected his claim on 16.09.2019

After a delay of nearly four years, the petitioner challenged this rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, which dismissed the application on 25.02.2026

The petitioner then moved the High Court via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the submission of a forged educational certificate disentitles a candidate from seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, even if they possess the minimum required qualifications otherwise

2. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a significant lapse of time (four to seven years) from the date of the employee's death

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The court applied the fundamental principle that public office cannot be secured through fraud or forged documents, as honesty is an indispensable attribute for public service

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: It relied on the Railway’s Circular dated 25.09.2017, which mandates the rejection of CGA (Compassionate Ground Appointment) cases involving fake certificates

Regarding the nature of the relief, the court followed the precedents of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon 2021 SCC Online SC 299, which establish that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a mechanism to provide "immediate succour" to tide over a sudden financial crisis

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s act of submitting a fake B.Com degree was a "concealment of facts" that "strikes at the core of the trust" required for public service

Even if the petitioner met the minimum criteria using his valid matriculation certificates, the attempt to cheat the administration was sufficient grounds for disqualification

Furthermore, the court analyzed the temporal aspect of the claim; since the father died in 2019 and the petition was filed years later, the "immediate financial crisis" intended to be mitigated by the policy had passed

The court observed that seven years had elapsed since the death, making the request for compassionate appointment—which is an exception to the general rule of recruitment—procedurally and substantively unsustainable

It further held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable time, as the crisis caused by the death is deemed to have been managed by the family

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT’s order

The court concluded with the maxim dura lex sed lex (the law is harsh, but it is the law)