Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5994 (UTT)

GAURAV SHAH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1168/2025 · 2026-05-25

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4129 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1168/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner was given compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant in District Rural Development Agency, Tehri Garhwal on 09.11.2009, as his father, who served as Junior Engineer died while in service on 12.05.2006. At the time of his appointment, petitioner possessed intermediate qualification only. 4. Petitioner upgraded his educational qualification and acquired Diploma in Civil Engineering, while in service and he then staked claim for appointment as Junior Engineer based on his academic qualification. His claim was turned down by the State Government, vide order dated 02.11.2023, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. In the impugned order, State Government held that dependent of a deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment only once and after availing that right in 2009 by joining on the post of Junior Assistant, petitioner cannot claim reappointment on the post of Junior Engineer, based on his upgraded qualification. 6. This Court do not find any infirmity in the view taken by State Government. Compassionate appointment is given to 2026:UHC:4129 dependent family member of a deceased employee to help the family survive sudden financial destitution. Petitioner accepted appointment as Junior Assistant in 2009 without raising any demur, therefore, his claim for reappointment on a higher post i.e. Junior Engineer, was legally not tenable. Merely because dependent of a deceased employee is educationally qualified for appointment to a superior post will not entitle him to claim appointment on such superior post. Compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of recruitment or career advancement, but it is a Socio-Welfare measure meant to bail the family out of an emergency. If petitioner is keen to be appointed as Junior Engineer, then it is open to him to participate in the selection, which is held by Public Service Commission at regular intervals, and if he is selected, then he can be appointed as Junior Engineer in a Government Department. Previously also, in a similar matter (WPSS No. 2248 of 2024), this Court has held as under:- “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 2026:UHC:4129 providing employment to dependent family member of a deceased employee.” 7. Thus, the reason assigned by State Government cannot be faulted. There is no scope for interference. 8. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. It goes without saying that if petitioner is eligible for promotion to next higher post in the ministerial cadre, then his claim, with other similarly situate persons, shall be considered by the competent authority, as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.05.2026 Navin