The Allahabad High Court has explained that the “Compassionate Appointment” by very nature looks to heal the extreme financial hardships that arise on the family of an unsuspecting employee for reason of sudden death of such employee. It is therefore, not permissible to assume that merely because the dependent family members of such a deceased employee would be of age more than the upper age prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, they would face no financial hardships or would not merit compassionate consideration, as a class.
Essentially, the Court clarified that where a specific rule (the Compassionate Rules) is created as an exception to a general rule (the Recruitment Rules) to achieve a special objective, the provisions of the specific rule must prevail over the general rule in case of a conflict.
The Court, thus, held that the discretionary power to relax the upper age limit “wherever found to be necessary”, as provided under the Compassionate Rules, is a specific statutory provision intended to achieve the object of providing relief from financial destitution. This power cannot be curtailed or fettered by the general age limits prescribed in the Recruitment Rules or by any administrative policy decision.
An administrative body cannot, through a policy decision, restrict the full application of a statutory rule or the discretion vested by it in a committee. Such a decision is ultra vires and unenforceable unless the parent rule itself is amended, added the Court, while upholding the Single Judge’s view that the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment must be considered in accordance with the Compassionate Rules.
The Court also directed the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the University to first consider the respondent’s request for upper age relaxation strictly in accordance with the Compassionate Rules, on the principle of “wherever found necessary”, without applying the age limits from the Recruitment Rules. Following the decision on age relaxation, the Committee must then consider the respondent’s claim for appointment on its merits, examining factors of dependency, financial hardship, and other material circumstances.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that that there are two distinct provisions concerning upper age relaxation. The Recruitment Rules provide for a 3-year relaxation for an OBC candidate, while the Compassionate Rules contain a specific clause under “Relaxations” stating, “Upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be necessary”.
The Bench noted that Recruitment Rules are framed in furtherance of Article 16 of the Constitution of India to provide equal opportunity. In contrast, Compassionate Rules are an exception to the general rules of appointment, designed to address the special purpose of relieving a family from sudden financial hardship and destitution due to the loss of its sole breadwinner.
The Bench also opined that in the face of two conflicting provisions, the more specific provision found within the Compassionate Rules, which directly seeks to fulfil the object of those rules, would apply notwithstanding the contrary import of the general Recruitment Rules. Thus, any administrative decision by the Executive Council that limits or restricts the exercise of discretion conferred by the statutory Compassionate Rules would be unenforceable, being outside its jurisdiction and contrary to the rules themselves, unless the rules are formally amended.
Lastly, the Bench found the University’s policy of restricting age relaxation only to widows, divorcees, and their wards to be “uninformed with reason” and “presumptuous”, and concluded that such a policy impermissibly prevents the appropriate committee from exercising its discretion based on the individual hardships of a case, as mandated by the Compassionate Rules.
Briefly, the dispute arises from the Banaras Hindu University’s refusal to grant the respondent a compassionate appointment following the death of her sister, a university employee. The Single Judge, however, set aside the University’s refusal order, and directed the University to consider the application without treating it as time-barred.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Pooja Agarwal, for the Petitioner
In Person appearance, for the Respondent
