Objective Test for Compassionate Appointment Reasonable When Vacancies Are Limited

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh, in Ajay Singh Yadav and 25 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026), held that where the number of dependants applying for compassionate appointment exceeds the posts earmarked for that category, requiring candidates to sit an objective type test is not an unreasonable method of selecting between them. 

What was the Background of Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners were dependants of police personnel who died in service, seeking compassionate appointment. 
• They challenged the note appended to Rule 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015, which restricts compassionate appointments to 5 per cent of the posts filled every year by direct recruitment, as ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. 
• They also challenged a Government Order dated 18 September 2015, which requires candidates in the dependants category to appear in an objective type test where they outnumber the posts earmarked for that category, and permits only one opportunity for recruitment against such a post. 
• Relying on the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioners contended that compassionate appointment is governed by these rules, which place no cap on such appointments, and that subjecting compassionate candidates to a written test defeats the very object of compassion. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Objective Type Test Being a Reasonable Mode of Selection: The Court held that evaluating which among several candidates is more deserving of compassionate appointment is bound to give rise to controversy and dispute. Subjecting such candidates to an objective type test, by contrast, removes any occasion for one candidate to allege that another received a backdoor appointment. 
• On Competition Not Being Wholly Excluded from Compassionate Appointment: The Court held that the element of competition cannot be entirely eliminated even in matters of compassionate appointment where the number of candidates exceeds the number of vacancies, and that an objective test serves the legitimate purpose of choosing fairly among competing claimants. 
• On the Petitioners' Reliance on Ashish Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.: The Court noted that the Division Bench in Ashish Bahadur Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, while taking suo motu cognizance and directing withdrawal of the note, had itself dismissed the special appeal, and that the direction was issued on the footing that the note did not create a reservation. It further noted that the State Government had not acted on that direction, and held that this did not aid the petitioners' claim to relief. 
• On the Petitioners' Reliance on State of U.P. v. Himanshu Yadav: The Court observed that it had not been shown that the Division Bench in Himanshu Yadav, which held that the 5 per cent restriction applies against vacancies arising each year, had occasion to consider the earlier decision in Ankur Gautam, where the validity of the note had been clearly upheld. 
• On the Binding Effect of Ankur Gautam v. State of U.P.: The Court noted the State's reliance on Ankur Gautam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, where an earlier Division Bench had upheld both the note and the objective test as fair and reasonable, holding that an upper limit on compassionate appointments was necessary to avoid shutting out open market candidates, and that the test served only to select among those already claiming compassion.

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• Compassionate appointment is granted with the object of relieving a family in distress from destitution, giving it immediate succour after the sudden loss of its breadwinner. 
• It is not a condition of service owed automatically to the dependant of an employee who dies in harness, and cannot be claimed without scrutiny or a selection process. 
• Such appointments exist to bail out the deceased employee's family from extreme financial difficulty where employment is the only means to meet the crisis. 
• The claim remains subject to the dependant fulfilling the eligibility requirements laid down under the applicable policy, instructions, or rules. 

Nature of the Right: 

• Compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right, and does not flow from Articles 14 or 16 as a general entitlement to public employment. 
• It is an exception to the general rule that public appointments must be made through open, merit-based recruitment, and must be construed strictly, confined to its object of relieving sudden financial destitution. 

Judicial Position on Limits and Selection Criteria: 

• Caps or quotas restricting compassionate appointments to a fixed percentage of vacancies have been upheld, since an unrestricted number would shut out open market candidates and turn the exception into a parallel mode of recruitment. 
• Where dependant-applicants exceed earmarked posts, requiring them to compete — including through an objective type test — is a reasonable and transparent method of selection, since assessing comparative "need for compassion" is itself prone to dispute. 
• Such a test does not alter the compassionate character of the appointment; it only regulates the choice among those already qualifying as eligible dependants. 

Landmark Judgments: 

• Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another (2016): The Allahabad High Court struck down the word "unmarried" qualifying "daughter" in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the UP Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, as violative of Articles 14 and 15. 
• State of U.P. v. Madhavi Mishra and Others (2021): The Allahabad High Court held that a married daughter cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. 
• Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree (2021): The Supreme Court summarised the governing principles — compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; no aspirant has a right to it; public appointments must otherwise conform to Articles 14 and 16; appointment can be made only on fulfilling the State's policy norms and eligibility criteria; and the norms prevailing on the date the application is considered govern the claim. 
• State of Maharashtra v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022): The Supreme Court held that a married daughter cannot be treated as dependent on her deceased parent, particularly where a significant period had elapsed since the employee's death.