Compassionate appointment not a vested right, must adhere to current policy for fair evaluation.

The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a benefit granted under specific policies, and should be based on the policy in effect at the time of consideration. The employer has the discretion to change policies as needed. The court emphasized that applications should be evaluated based on the current policy to prevent manipulation. In the specific case, the application should have been assessed under the new policy in effect at the time of consideration. The court overruled previous decisions suggesting otherwise and directed prompt processing of such applications for fair treatment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Which policy of the Government is to be applied in cases of compassionate appointment: the policy at the time of the employee's death, the policy at the time of application, or the policy at the time of considerationRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature and Objective of Compassionate Appointment:
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public service appointments, which typically require merit-based selection through open competition. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness, thereby helping them to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The Supreme Court has emphasized that such appointments should not be viewed as an alternative mode of recruitment but as a means to alleviate the destitution caused by the untimely death of the sole breadwinner. The appointment is governed by specific schemes or policies formulated by the employer, which must align with the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16.

2. Policy Applicable for Compassionate Appointment:
The core question addressed was whether the policy prevailing at the time of the employee's death, the time of application, or the time of consideration should be applied. The court concluded that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a benefit granted under specific schemes or policies. Therefore, the consideration for such appointments should be based on the policy prevailing at the time of consideration. The employer has the right to change policies based on various factors, and the appointment must be made in accordance with the current policy at the time of consideration.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles:
The court reviewed several precedents, including cases like Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, and State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, which underscored that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule and must be carefully regulated to avoid undue interference with the rights of other eligible candidates. The court also referred to cases like P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone, which established that benefits based on policies or schemes should be granted according to the policy in effect at the time of consideration.

4. Evaluation of Claims for Compassionate Appointment:
The court emphasized that the evaluation of claims for compassionate appointments should be governed by the policies in existence at the time of consideration, not by outdated policies. This ensures that the employer can adapt to changing circumstances and requirements. The court rejected the argument that applications should be considered based on the policy at the time of submission, as this could allow employers to manipulate the outcome by delaying the processing of applications.

5. Specific Case Analysis:
In the case at hand, the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was initially submitted under an old policy but was considered and rejected under a new policy that came into effect before the application was processed. The court held that the application should have been evaluated based on the new policy in effect at the time of consideration, affirming the employer's right to apply the current policy.

6. Conclusion and Directions:
The court concluded that:
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested legal right but a benefit granted under specific policies.
- Consideration for such appointments should be based on the policy prevailing at the time of consideration.
- The decisions in T. Swamy Dass and Heeralal Baria, which suggested otherwise, were overruled.
- Employers must process applications for compassionate appointments promptly to ensure fair treatment of families in distress.

The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was remanded to the Division Bench for a decision on the merits of the appeal.

---