Suppression of a dependent sibling’s government employment disentitles a candidate to compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s father died in harness on 18 February 2016.

She was appointed on compassionate grounds by order dated 14 January 2019 and placed on probation for two years.

Subsequently, the respondents issued a show-cause notice alleging that she had failed to disclose in her application that her brother was employed in Government service, despite the applicable compassionate-appointment policy rendering other dependants ineligible where a family member was already in Government employment.

After considering the petitioner’s reply, the respondent cancelled her appointment by order dated 6 March 2019.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The respondent opposed the petition on merits and also contended that the dispute was referable to Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to disclose her brother’s Government employment constituted suppression of a material fact affecting her eligibility for compassionate appointment under the applicable policy?

Whether cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment during probation, after issuance of a show-cause notice and consideration of her reply, was arbitrary, punitive, or violative of the principles of natural justice?

Whether the petitioner had acquired a vested or indefeasible right to continue in service merely because she had been appointed and was performing satisfactorily?

Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the respondent being a cooperative society and the alleged remedy under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960?

The Court applied the compassionate-appointment policy, particularly its condition that where a dependant of the deceased employee is already in Government employment, another family member is ineligible for compassionate appointment.

It further applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception intended to provide immediate financial assistance and does not create an indefeasible right to appointment or continuance where the eligibility conditions were not satisfied.

Relying on Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 263, and State Bank of India v. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607, the Court held that a probationer has no right to hold the post and may be discharged for unsuitability; however, where misconduct is the foundation of termination, the principles of natural justice must be observed.

The Court also relied on Vivek Sharma v. State of M.P., 2018 (1) MPLJ 57, concerning the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination.

The Court also relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437, as referred to in Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, for the rule that suppression of material information affecting eligibility or character may justify cancellation of appointment and does not confer a right to continuance.

The Court also recognized that judicial review under Article 226 does not warrant interference where the decision is supported by the record and is neither arbitrary nor perverse.

The Court found that the petitioner’s brother was undisputedly in Government employment and that this fact was not disclosed in the application form, although it directly affected eligibility under the compassionate-appointment policy.

The petitioner’s explanation that she alone maintained the family, or that she was otherwise discharging her duties satisfactorily, could not override the express policy condition.

The Court treated the respondent’s action as cancellation of an appointment made contrary to the eligibility requirements during the petitioner’s probation, rather than as punitive termination of a confirmed employee.

Procedural fairness was satisfied because the petitioner was informed of the alleged suppression, issued a show-cause notice, permitted to submit an explanation, and heard before the order was passed.

Consequently, the action did not violate natural justice and did not require a departmental enquiry.

The Court held that the undisclosed Government employment of the petitioner’s brother was a material fact and that the petitioner had acquired no vested or indefeasible right to continue in service.

The petitioner had no vested or indefeasible right to continue during probation, and her satisfactory performance or asserted responsibility for maintaining the family could not overcome the policy’s eligibility condition.

Finding no illegality, perversity, arbitrariness, or breach of natural justice in the order dated 6 March 2019, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined reinstatement or consequential benefits.