2025:UHC:7978 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Service Single No. 2248 of 2024 09 September, 2025 Kuldeep Singh --Petitioner Versus Nagar Nigam Haridwar & others. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 08-10- 2024 (Contained as Annexure No. 10 to this Writ Petition) issued by Respondent No. 3 to this Writ Petition). II. Issue a writ, order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to appoint the Petitioner to the Post of Assistant Teacher Mathematics (L.T. Grade) in Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar.” 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade by the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, vide order dated 08.10.2024. 1 2025:UHC:7978 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s father Mr. Harpal Singh served as Assistant Teacher in Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar, which is a Government Aided Institution and is managed by Municipal Corporation, Haridwar. While in employment, petitioner’s father passed away on 07.12.2021, therefore, his mother made request for giving compassionate appointment to petitioner. In the application made on 30.03.2022, appointment was sought on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade. The request for compassionate appointment was turned down by Chief Education Officer on the ground that as per the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 applicable to Government employees, compassionate appointment can be given only on a Group-D post or Group-C post of Junior Assistant and not as teacher. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Admittedly, petitioner’s father was serving in a Government Aided Institution and its employees, both teaching and non-teaching, do not have the status of Government employee, therefore, Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which are applicable only to Government employees are not attracted. The service conditions of teaching and non-teaching employees of Government Aided Schools are governed by Uttarakhand School Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. 5. Law is well settled that compassionate appointment is given to a dependent family member of deceased employee to provide financial relief to the family facing destitution on account of death of the breadwinner. The focus is on easing the family’s immediate hardship and not on providing a career to the 2 2025:UHC:7978 applicant. It serves as a measure to help the family to get over an emergency and tide over the financial crisis. Offering compassionate appointment is not a matter of course, but depends on the family’s financial condition, upon death of an employee. The purpose of appointment is to help the family to wade through an economic calamity and not to cater to applicant’s dignity or status. If the applicant finds the post beneath his dignity, he is free not to accept it. 6. From the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of compassionate appointment, the following principles emerge; (a) appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public service is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner by providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process; (b) the right of a dependent of an employee, who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any other ground dehors the scheme/rules framed by the employer; (c) appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule; (d) no aspirant has a vested right to compassionate appointment to a particular post, commensurate with his qualification; (e) appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made through an open selection by providing equality of opportunity to all eligible candidates; and (f) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only by following the norms laid down by State Policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy. 3 2025:UHC:7978 7. Petitioner has staked claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade, who teaches students upto 10th standard. Teachers play a crucial role in education as they influence and shape the minds of future generations, impart knowledge and skills to their students and create a supportive learning environment to foster intellectual growth and development. Thus they shape the future of a nation. Appointing teachers without selection compromises the quality of education, violating the fundamental right under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. As discussed earlier, compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate financial relief, not permanent social status. A transparent and competitive recruitment of teachers ensures that only the best candidates are appointed for educating the children. Compassionate appointment bypasses the selection process and denies the entry of deserving talent. Right to education which is a fundamental right, entitles the children to quality education and teachers, if appointed on considerations other than merit, would defeat the right of children to get quality education. Standard of education cannot be compromised for the sake of providing employment to dependent family member of a deceased employee. 8. In the case of Tinku v. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case of compassionate appointment held as under:- “12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is 4 2025:UHC:7978 given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment. 13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted. 14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner.” 9. Petitioner has claimed appointment as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade. The post of teacher cannot be compared with other Group-C ministerial posts, as a teacher needs to be equipped with necessary skill so that he can groom the students into worthy citizen. Although, a dependent family member of a deceased employee of an educational institution may have the right to be considered for compassionate appointment, however, that right would be subservient to the right of children to get quality education. Future of the nation depends on the children and quality of instructions imparted to students cannot be compromised by appointing teachers on considerations other than merit. The status of 5 2025:UHC:7978 teachers cannot be belittled by comparing them with other Group-C employees. 10. Even though, the reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s claim for appointment as teacher may not be valid, however, the decision not to appoint the petitioner as teacher cannot be faulted. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to direct the Competent Authority to offer the post of Assistant teacher to the petitioner. 12. Having regard to the facts and reasons, as mentioned above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make fresh application for compassionate appointment on a non-teaching post. If he makes such application within two weeks from today, the Manager shall forward his application to the Chief Education Officer for approval within ten days thereafter. The Chief Education Officer shall examine petitioner’s claim and take decision as per law within six weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 09.09.2025 Navin 6 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.11 20:05:04 +05'30'