Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or irregularity. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih rejected a petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, citing that such a demand cannot rest on precedents of illegal benefits granted to others. The case emphasizes the limits of the equality principle under Article 14 and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legality.

The petitioner’s father, a government employee, passed away in 1997 when the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment in 2008 after attaining a majority, but the Haryana Government rejected the application citing its 1999 policy, which limited such applications to three years after the employee’s death. The petitioner argued that others in similar circumstances had been granted appointments despite the time bar.

This case scrutinizes the boundaries of legal equality, compassionate appointments, and the judiciary’s approach to policies designed for administrative consistency.

Petitioner’s Case:

The petitioner based the claim on the following grounds:

• Exceptional Circumstances:

The petitioner was only 7 years old when his father passed away, making it impossible to apply for a compassionate appointment before attaining majority.

• Precedent of Exceptions:

It was argued that many other applicants with time-barred cases were granted compassionate appointments by the Haryana Government.

• Right to Equality under Article 14:

The petitioner contended that denying him a compassionate appointment while granting the same to others in similar circumstances was discriminatory and violated his fundamental right to equality.

• Purpose of Compassionate Appointments:

The petitioner argued that such appointments aim to mitigate financial distress caused by the untimely death of a breadwinner, a principle applicable to his case.

Respondent’s Case (Haryana Government):

The Haryana Government countered the petitioner’s claims with the following points:

• Policy Constraints:

The State highlighted its 1999 policy, which imposed a three-year limit for applying for compassionate appointments after the death of an employee. The petitioner’s application, made in 2008, was far beyond this period.

• No Vested Right to Compassionate Appointment:

The State contended that compassionate appointments are not a vested right but a privilege governed by specific policies.

• Prevention of Precedents in Illegality:

The State rejected the argument based on past exceptions, stating that such precedents do not justify the perpetuation of irregularities or illegal actions.

• Administrative Consistency:

The government emphasized the need for adherence to policies to maintain administrative consistency and fairness.

Court’s Judgment:

• Rejection of Claim:

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Augustine George Masih, rejected the petitioner’s claim, stating that a compassionate appointment cannot be granted based on past irregularities. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Limits of Article 14:

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality but cannot be used to enforce illegal benefits granted to others. The Court observed that equality under Article 14 is “clothed in positivity based on law” and can only enforce claims with legal sanctity.

“No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals,” the judgment stated.

• Concept of Equality:

The Court underscored that equality does not mean the repetition of illegalities. Upholding one irregular action by citing another would lead to a breakdown of administrative order and legality.

• Compassionate Appointment is Not a Vested Right:

The Court clarified that compassionate appointments are not an inherent right but a concession granted under specific policies to alleviate the immediate financial distress of a deceased employee’s family.

In this case, the petitioner’s delay of over a decade rendered the claim outside the scope of the 1999 policy, which imposed a three-year limit.

• Administrative Fairness:

Granting the petitioner’s claim would have disrupted the policy framework, setting a dangerous precedent for others to demand benefits by citing past irregularities.

• Role of Judiciary:

The Court reiterated that the judiciary cannot compel authorities to perpetuate illegality by granting relief based on past wrongful actions. Such orders would undermine the ethos of justice and legality.

• Broader Implications:

The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments are governed by policy frameworks rather than emotional or subjective considerations. It also establishes that irregularities cannot justify further deviations, protecting the integrity of administrative rules and ensuring consistency in governance.