Compassionate appointment cannot displace regular recruitment; where no Class III vacancy exists, appointment is confined to a Class IV post.

Compassionate appointment under the applicable aided-institution regulations is a limited exception to regular recruitment and must not displace the rights of other eligible candidates or distort the cadre structure. The proper construction required appointment against a Class III post only where such a vacancy existed; if no Class III post was available in the institution or elsewhere in the district, the dependent could be appointed on a Class IV post in the concerned institution, with a supernumerary Class IV post created for that purpose. A direction to create a supernumerary Class III post was therefore unsustainable, and the entitlement was confined to the lower cadre.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the applicable regulations governing compassionate appointment in recognised aided institutions, a dependent of a deceased teaching or non-teaching employee could be directed to be appointed on a Class III post and, if no such post was available, a supernumerary Class III post could be created for that purpose.

Analysis: Compassionate employment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and is intended to relieve the family of the deceased employee from immediate financial . Such a provision must be construed so that it does not displace the ordinary recruitment scheme or extinguish the rights of other eligible candidates. The construction adopted by the High Court would have resulted in all Class III vacancies available for direct recruitment being diverted to dependents of deceased employees, which would be inconsistent with the object and structure of the scheme and would create avoidable conflict with the principle of equality in public employment. The proper reading of the regulations was that, where no Class III post was available in the concerned institution or elsewhere in the district, the dependent could be appointed on a Class IV post in the institution where the deceased was serving, with a supernumerary Class IV post created for that purpose.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction for appointment on a Class III post and creation of a supernumerary Class III post was unsustainable; the respondents were entitled only to appointment on a Class IV post where no Class III post was available.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the writ petitions stood disposed of in terms that preserved compassionate appointment only within the Class IV category when no Class III vacancy existed.

Ratio Decidendi: A compassionate appointment scheme must be construed as a limited exception to regular recruitment, and it cannot be interpreted so as to require creation of a supernumerary post in the higher cadre when such an interpretation would distort the recruitment scheme and impair equal opportunity in public employment.

---