Compassionate Appointment: Denial Of Higher Post Despite Qualifications Is Arbitrary, Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

In a recent judgment, on March 2, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave relief to a compassionate appointee (son of a deceased government employee). The court ruled that the qualification of the bereaved must be respected while offering them a compassionate appointment. The bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar called the district-level authorities' decision based on unrelated circulars ‘arbitrary’. It ordered the regularisation of the petitioner’s (son) service under the appropriate designation (Junior Assistant effective) based on his qualification and set aside the District Court order passed in 2011.

The government offers compassionate appointments to save the dependent family members from financial difficulties. According to the Department of Personnel and Training, the objective of the compassionate appointment is “to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”

The matter starts with the death of a father, a government employee who served as an Examiner of Copies in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sidhout. He died in harness on April 17, 2004. After his death, his son (petitioner), was appointed on a compassionate basis on December 7, 2004. He was appointed as an ‘Attender’ in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. However, Reddy, having the minimum educational qualification to be appointed as a ‘Junior assistant’, filed several requests in this regard. In 2009, he filed a writ petition, and the District Judge of Kadapa directed a review of his appointment post. Later on March 22, 2011, the District Court rejected the request based on a circular ROC.No.2536/98-C1(1), dated March 23, 1999.  

Aggrieved by the judgment, he approached the High Court by way of this petition.  

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner cited an earlier case (Kum. P. Thulasi), in which the court directed moving Thulasi from the post of Attender to a Field Assistant under government order (G.O.)Ms.No.612, dated October 30, 1991. The petitioner contended that the 1991 government order explicitly allows dependents to be considered for any category equal to or lower than Junior Assistant if they meet the required qualifications and standards.

However, the respondents justified the District Court’s rejection as per the 1999 circular, which governs the promotion for selection and non-selection posts.

Court Observation

The Court observed that the District Judge’s reliance on the 1999 circular was entirely misplaced. It noted, “A perusal of this Circular, dated 23.03.1999, would show that the said Circular relates to promotions for selection posts and non-selection posts. It is not clear as to how a Circular relating to promotions would bar the appointment of a person, under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, to the post of Junior Assistant, if such a person is otherwise eligible and has the necessary educational qualifications.”

Noticing that the District Judge’s office applied the beneficial provision under the 1991 rule to another individual but ignored it for the petitioner, the High Court labelled the selective application of rules as arbitrary.

Court Judgment

The Court set aside the District Court rejection order in 2011, and directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner’s service as a Junior Assistant, effective from the date his request was initially rejected and give him the necessary promotions and time scale of pay. The Court ruled no payment of back wages as the petitioner was already paid for this job as an attender and subsequent promotion posts. The Court ordered to complete the administrative exercise within eight weeks from the date of the order.