Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board vs Harpal Singh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._______OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 26798 of 2025)

MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS. ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

HARPAL SINGH AND ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the

Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board

and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”), being

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th April 2025

passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in

Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.20

3. By the impugned judgment, the order dated 24th 14:24:17 IST Reason:

January 2025 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court

Page 1 of 13 in Writ Petition No. 36707 of 2024 was upheld whereby the

Single Bench had directed the competent authorities to

sympathetically consider the compassionate appointment of

Harpal Singh, the Respondent no. 1, to a lower post (Class-

IV) subject to his willingness to serve in such post.

4. A reference to the facts in brief will facilitate

appreciating the issue involved. The issue pertains to the

claim of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment on

compassionate ground. The Respondent no. 1 is the son of

Late Shri Ramjilal Kushwah, who died in harness on 28th

February 2019, while serving as a Peon in the Krishi Upaj

Mandi Samiti, Alampur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.

5. Thereafter, in accordance with the policy governing

compassionate appointment, issued by the General

Administration Department, Government of Madhya

Pradesh, vide Memorandum No. C-3-12/2013/1/3 dated

29th September 2014, the Respondent no. 1 was sanctioned

appointment on compassionate ground to a Class-III post,

namely Assistant Grade-III, in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,

Morena, as per sanction order issued by the Additional

Director (Personnel), M.P. State Agricultural Marketing

Page 2 of 13 Board, on 26th August 2020, which was followed by the

appointment order dated 11th September 2020 issued by the

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena.

6. However, it merits emphasis that as per Clause 6.5

of the above-mentioned Government Memorandum dated

29th September 2014, an appointment to the post of

Assistant Grade-III was conditional, as the concerned

candidate had to clear the Computer Proficiency

Certification Test (CPCT) within three years of joining

service. The afore-mentioned Clause 6.5 is reproduced

hereunder:

“6.5 For the grant of compassionate appointment to the dependant of Government Servant on the post of Assistant Grade-3, 3 years time will be given for passing Computer Diploma and Computer Typing Certificate Exam from the recognized institute. In case of not passing the required exams within the prescribed period of 3 years, in view of the attempts of passing exams by the concerned employee and the typing eligibility as acquired by him, period of 1 year may be further extended by the Appointing Authority. In case of not passing the required exams by the concerned employee even after the expiry of this period, his services could be terminated.”

7. In consonance with the above Clause, the

appointment order of the Respondent no. 1, dated 11th

September 2020, expressly stipulated that he is required to

acquire the requisite computer qualifications within a period

Page 3 of 13 of three years. This caveat was incorporated in Conditions

No. 15 and 16 of the appointment order, which lie at the

heart of the present litigation and are reproduced hereunder:

“15. It shall be mandatory to pass CPCT Examination within a period of 3 years from the institution recognized from the Government. The service will be terminated in case of not passing mentioned examination within the prescribed time period.

16. It shall be mandatory to pass Computer Examination within 3 years from an institution among following recognized institutions along with passing Computer Typing Proficiency Certificate Examination from a recognized institution. The service will be terminated in case of not passing mentioned examination within the prescribed time period.

(i) Diploma from any University recognized by U.G.C.

(ii) Diploma from any Open University recognized by U.G.C.

(iii) Diploma Level Examination from D.O.E.A.C.C.

(iv) Modern Office Management Course from Government Polytechnic College.

(v) One Year ‘Computer Operator and Programming Assistant’ (COPA) Certificate from Government I.T.I.”

8. The dispute arose when notwithstanding the expiry

of the stipulated three-year period under Condition No. 15,

and in spite of grant of an additional one-year extension from

15th September 2023 to 14th September 2024, the

Respondent no. 1 failed to obtain and submit the requisite

CPCT scorecard, culminating in the termination of his

services vide order dated 30th September 2024 issued by the

appointing authority.

Page 4 of 13

9. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent no. 1 filed a Writ

Petition, being No. 36707 of 2024, before the High Court

seeking quashing and setting aside of his termination order

and restoration of his service in the department. The Single

Bench of the High Court while refraining from setting aside

the termination order and emphasising the underlying

welfare purpose of compassionate appointment, directed the

competent authorities to sympathetically consider the case

of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment to a lower post

(Class-IV) in which CPCT qualification is not mandatory,

subject to expressing his willingness to serve in such post.

It is this direction, affirmed by the Division Bench of the

High Court, that forms the subject matter of challenge in the

present appeal.

10. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it is

apposite at this juncture to highlight the underlying

principles of compassionate appointments, as this Court

cannot remain oblivious to the human realities that animate

disputes of this nature. It is a harsh reality that the sudden

loss of a breadwinner does not merely extinguish a life; it

often disrupts the economic stability of the entire household.

Page 5 of 13

11. In families where a deceased stood as the only

source of sustenance, death carries with it not only

emotional devastation but the looming threat of deprivation,

insecurity and social marginalisation. A welfare State,

committed to the Constitutional ideals of justice with the

mandate of reducing inequality, promoting social justice and

ensuring a basic standard of living for all, cannot afford to

allow such bereaved families to slide into destitution by the

mechanical operation of procedural formalities.

Significantly, a responsibility has been cast upon the State

under the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India,

i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy to

serve such a welfare State. Thus, the policy of

compassionate appointment is not a concession, largesse or

mercy shown to hapless dependents of a deceased employee,

but a structured response of the State to ensure that the

death of an employee does not mark the beginning of

economic calamity for those left behind. It is from this

vantage point that the competing claims in the present

appeal must be examined.

Page 6 of 13

12. This Court has in numerous occasions elucidated

the underlying humanitarian purpose of compassionate

appointment. The principle was articulated lucidly in

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh1, wherein

this Court observed as follows:

“8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.”

13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the

considered opinion that both the Single and Division Bench

of the High Court rightly directed the competent authority to

consider the case of Respondent no. 1 for compassionate

appointment to a lower post (Class IV), which does not

require CPCT qualification. The undertaking furnished by

Respondent no. 1 to be considered for appointment to a

lower post (Class-IV), identical to the one held by his

1 (1997) 8 SCC 85.

Page 7 of 13 deceased father, does not entail any relaxation of eligibility

norms, nor does it confer upon him any undue or

undeserved advantage.

14. The appellants, relying upon various judgments

such as Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh2, Vijendra

Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission3, and Manish

Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar4, among others, contended

that after taking part in the selection process, knowing fully

well the procedure, the Respondent no. 1 cannot challenge

it later. We have perused the judgments relied upon by the

appellants, but these have no relevance to the instant case,

as the material facts in those cases are clearly

distinguishable from the facts of the present matter. The

afore-mentioned cases do not deal with the issue of

compassionate appointments, which is an exception to the

‘rule of equality’ in the matters of public employment, as was

held in General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain5

and wholly distinct from the usual process of ‘direct

recruitment’. Had this been a case of ‘direct recruitment’, the

2 (2008) 4 SCC 619 3 (2011) 1 SCC 150 4 (2010) 12 SCC 576 5 (2008) 8 SCC 475

Page 8 of 13 Respondent no. 1 could not, in any circumstances, have

been allowed to be considered for a lower post in lieu of,

failing to satisfy the qualifications of the higher post. This

distinction was also rightly made by the Single Bench of the

High Court, in the order dated 24th January 2025. In

addition, the Single Bench had rightly observed that it was

the appellants themselves who had appointed the

Respondent no. 1 to a higher post, namely, Assistant Grade-

III, despite his not possessing the CPCT qualification.

15. Taking into account the humanitarian objective of

the compassionate appointment scheme along with the

surrounding circumstances, where the Respondent no. 1

fulfils all other essential qualifications and has also

rendered prima facie unblemished service for a continuous

period of four years, directing the competent authority to

consider him for appointment to a Class-IV post cannot be

said to transgress any statutory or policy conditions. No

prejudice is caused to the administration or to any candidate

by such a measure. On the contrary, it aligns with the

institutional responsibility to implement welfare policies in

a manner that preserves the beneficial character.

Page 9 of 13

16. Additionally, directing the case of the Respondent

no. 1 to be considered against a Class-IV post does not

violate Clause 13.1 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh

Memorandum dated 29th September 2014, which stipulates

that a compassionate appointment once granted shall not be

granted again on any other post. In the present case, the

Respondent no. 1 is not seeking a “second” or fresh

compassionate appointment. Instead, the relief sought is

merely a downward adjustment to a Class IV post, which is

analogous to a reallocation within the same establishment

and framework to preserve the object of the social welfare

scheme. Thus, the appellants’ reliance on Clause 13.1 is

misplaced and reflects an unduly literal interpretation

divorced from context and purpose, especially where

termination would defeat the very purpose for which the

appointment was granted.

17. It can be safely concluded that a narrow or

mechanical construction of the rules governing

compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to override

the welfare-oriented purpose of the scheme. Where a

procedural rigidity ceases to advance the humanitarian

Page 10 of 13 intent of the policy and instead operates as an obstacle to

its effective implementation, such a procedure must be

construed liberally to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at

the altar of technicality. In this context, it is apposite to

recall the sagacious observations of V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. in

Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar6:

“Justice is the goal of jurisprudence – processual, as much as substantive. While this appeal has to be allowed, ………………, I must sound a pessimistic note that it is too puritanical for a legal system to sacrifice the end product of equity and good conscience at the altar of processual punctiliousness and it is not too radical to avert a breakdown of obvious justice by bending sharply, if need be, the prescriptions of procedure. The wages of procedural sin should never be the death of rights.”

18. In this background, it is incumbent upon both the

concerned government departments and the Courts to adopt

a humane and purposive approach, ensuring that the spirit

of the scheme prevails over strict or pedantic readings of its

procedural stipulations. Procedures and technicalities in

welfare schemes are meant to provide structure, not to

become cracks through which the most vulnerable slip.

When interpretation widens those cracks instead of

6 1975 (1) SCC 774

Page 11 of 13 narrowing them, the wall ceases to protect and begins to

endanger.

19. It is also necessary to emphasise that a

compassionate appointment, arising out of the death of an

employee in harness, operates within a distinct framework

carved out to address an exceptional situation. Such

appointments are made against posts earmarked under the

compassionate appointment scheme and do not trench upon

vacancies meant for regular recruitment or for candidates

belonging to other categories. In the absence of any

demonstrable prejudice to similarly situated candidates or

encroachment upon the rights of others, a direction to

consider appointment of the Respondent no. 1 under the

said scheme cannot be said to violate either the mandate of

equality under Article 14 or the guarantee of equality of

opportunity in matters of public employment under Article

16 of the Constitution of India. Compassionate

appointment, being a narrowly tailored welfare measure,

stands on a distinct footing and does not militate against the

principles governing open competition in public employment

as the appellants have sought to make out.

Page 12 of 13

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit

in this appeal, and the same is dismissed.

21. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 7th April,

2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025 and direct the

appellants to consider the case of the Respondent no. 1 for

compassionate appointment to a Class-IV post,

expeditiously and within six weeks.

22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.……..……………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

……..…………..….……………….………J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 28, 2025

Page 13 of 13