Page No.# 1/32 GAHC040015772025 2026:GAU-AP:505 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/439/2025 Tanyo Nyodu and 67 Ors Son of Late Erik Nyodu, Ram Village, PO and PS Nari, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Hage Hanya Age: Occupation : Son of Late Hage Rido Hari Village PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Toko Kamin Age: Occupation : Son of Lt Toko Jhekhon Village Talo PO and PS Yachuli Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Kipa Bhai Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kipa Tangu Village Sango PO and PS Nyapin Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Norbu Tsering Age: Occupation : Page No.# 2/32 Son of Late Mirti Tsering PO and PS Dirang West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Mrs Joram Yalyo Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Joram Chada Nirjuli near Veterinary Hospital PO and PS Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Mrs Tai Yatak Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tai Nikpo Pagba Village PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Mrs Jushna Pegu Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Shaktin Pegu Solmari Village PO Pithaguri PS Bihpuria Lakhimpur District Assam. 9: Tadar Eii Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tadar Takiang Laba Village PO and PS Nyapin Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Tage Mara Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taku Mara Mara Village PO and PS Taliha Page No.# 3/32 Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Miss Tuter Hira Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Paktu Hira Kombo Tarasu Mohuk PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Abhijeet Samanta Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Amar Kanti Samanta Belar Village PO Belar PS Madhab Dihi Burdwan District West Bengal 13: Smti Tadar Yadam Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tadar Tayu Yuba Village PO and PS Nyapin Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Miss Jyoti Phuntso Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Sang Phuntso Oyan village PO and PS Sille Oyan East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 15: Smti Nyari Likar Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Goi Likar Sesilikar Village PO and PS Kamba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 4/32 16: Smti Ribi Gamlin Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Bombi Gamlin resident of Libu Bene PO and PS Kamba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Smti Meppak Ete Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Goto Ete Wak Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 18: smti Sarboli Basumatary Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Ranjeet Kr Basumatary Village No.2 PO and PS Udalguri Darrang District Assam. 19: Lham Tsering Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Langa Therchung Yusum Village PO and PS Tawang Tawang District Arunachal Pradesh. 20: Komar Yomggam Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Rikko Yomggam resident of Likabali PO and PS Likabali West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 21: Smti Khumyan Manjey Age: Page No.# 5/32 Occupation : Daughter of Late Tangrong Manjey Goju village PO and PS Bordumsa Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 22: Tage Tage Age: Occupation : Wife of Tage Dibo PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 23: Smti Gopi Ete Tashi Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Jarkar Tashi Tadin Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 24: Smti Sushila Devi Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Chote Lal Yadav Rampurchit Village PO and PS Rampur Chit Ballia District Uttar Pradesh. 25: smti Gichik Emik Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Gichik Massa Dokum Colony Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 26: Obit Norah Age: Occupation : Wife Late Biswswar Norah Nongkhon Village PO Npngkhon Page No.# 6/32 PS Modevpur Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 27: Smti Sengmi Matcha Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Chahlat Matcha Khimiyang Village PO and PS Miao Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 28: Smti Benjir Angu Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Pebom Angu Angu Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 29: Smti Gemur Bado (Boko) Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tami Boko Komkar Village PO and PS Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 30: Smti Bompi Gara Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Pebom Gara Padi Village PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 31: Smti Chawan Kungkho Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Khunsam Kungkho Laktong Village PO and PS Changlang District Changlang Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 7/32 32: Chokpha Wangsu Age: Occupation : Wife Late Nokthak Wangsu Chopnu Village PO and PS Kanubari Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 33: Miss Bimen Ruti Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Dabi Ruti Upper Borajan Village PO and PS Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 34: Smti Saraswati Singh Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Lallna Singh resident of New Market Aalo PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 35: Smti Perrik Doye Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Bommar Doye resident of Bogdo Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 36: Smti Rinching Droma Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Daying Bimpak Police Colony Bomdila Po and PS Bomdila West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 37: Arup Saikia Age: Page No.# 8/32 Occupation : Brother of Late Apurba Saikia Phulaguri PS Bihpuria Lakhimpur District Assam. 38: Miss Khangcha Akhang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Jamwang Akhang resident of Old Paniduria Village PO and PS Borduria Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 39: Samme Shin Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lompo Shin Lamlo Village PO and PS Deomali Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 40: Miss Sunita Devi Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Mangat Ram Police Colony Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 41: Huatem Thoyang Age: Occupation : Son of Phuna Thoyang Old Tupi Village PO and PS Khonsa Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 42: Smti Phidat Kamhua (Tante) Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Taptung Tante Page No.# 9/32 Old Changnyak Village PO and PS Khonsa Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 43: Smti Subhawati Mungyak (Nang) Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Nong Bow Nong Singpho Dirak Pathar Po and PS Bordumsa Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 44: Nokte Hakhun Age: Occupation : Brother of Late Komse Hakhun Rajanagar-II PO and PS Bordumsa Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 45: Mithilesh Thakur Age: Occupation : Son of Late Shyam Badam Thakur Fattu Chapur PO Gaura Bazar PS Kateya Gopal Ganj District Bihar. 46: Smti Chakphool Riba Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tali Riba Donyi Polo Village PO and PS Kharsang Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 47: Smti Tannem Jugli Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Jahlim Jugli Education Colony PO and PS Jairampur Page No.# 10/32 Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 48: Smti Ngampan Wangsa Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Lohwang Wangham Senna Village PO and PS Longding District Longding Arunachal Pradesh. 49: Smti Nang Pafawati Longkan Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Chow Engtra Longkam Wingko Village PO and PS Wingko Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh. 50: Taw Maling Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taje Maling Damsite Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 51: Smti Sunita Chowpoo Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Omit Payeng Adi Ningroo PO and PS Piyong Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh. 52: Tato Nyompu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tadap Nyompu Nyompu Village PO and PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 11/32 53: Vijay Goba Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tamar Goba Godak village PO and PS Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh. 54: Smti Nyamo Socia Mema Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Wangnyok Mema Borduria Village PO and PS Borduria Khonsa Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 55: Smti Khingchem Tikhak Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Manlitang Tikhak resident of New Longchong PO and PS Nampong Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 56: Smti Gitanjali Baruah Enling Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Chow Suchingta Enling PO and PS Namsai District Namsai Arunachal Pradesh. 57: Smti Gampi Uli Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Dater Uli SRPL Filed Itanagar PO and PS Chimpu Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 58: Tai Rai Age: Page No.# 12/32 Occupation : Son of Late Taram Rai Village Zigba Rai PO and PS Siyum Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 59: Rajdeep Baruah Age: Occupation : Son of Late Priya Baruah Sipu Riya Village PO and PS Tinsukia Assam. 60: Mrs Gyati Rupa Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Gyati Butung Hari Village PO and PS Hapoli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 61: Romanti Brah Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tali Brah Village Sede Natung PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 62: Bharat Jerang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Somen Murtem Son of Late Taki Murtem Khrbari Village PO and PS Kalaptukar Kamel District Arunachal Pradesh. 63: Smti Withan Changmi Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Nanthang Tangha Saching Village Page No.# 13/32 PO and PS Changlang District Changlang Arunachal Pradesh. 64: Smti Mini Rigam Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Karto Riram Sago Village PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 65: Smti Nuwang Thingnok Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tenok Thingnok Doidam Village PO and PS Soha Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 66: Somen Murtem Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taki Murtem Village Kherbari PO and PS Kalaptukar Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh. 67: Smti Sonam Chotten Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tsering Monpa Pedung Village PO and PS Bomdila West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 68: Miss Phamo Wangpan Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Nokdow Wangpan F Sector Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Page No.# 14/32 Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 7 Ors represented by the Home Commissioner, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The Director General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh PHQ Chimpu Itanagar 791111 3:The Inspector General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh PHQ Chimpu Itanagar 791111 Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Assistant Inspector General of Police (E) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh PHQ Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Digam Loffa Age: 26 Occupation : Son of Late Dungmar Loffa P/R Type-4 Colony Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Rajiv Samyor Age: 26 Occupation : Son of Late Tachung Samyor P/R Aalo PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Page No.# 15/32 Arunachal Pradesh. 7:John Tagang Age: 32 Occupation : Son of Karbia Tagang P/R Model Village Seppa PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Moi Bomjen Age: 30 Occupation : Son of Late Yamo Bomjen P/R Peri Village Kamba PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, k N Maling,S Mili,Tenzin Chhoten,Chanya Bangsia,Sonam Tsomo,Tapi Nguki Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Yasmin Gao :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 16/32 Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Y. Gao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Result Notification dated 21.07.2025 issued by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the candidates have been shortlisted for appearing in the written examination for recruitment to various posts under compassionate appointment in Arunachal Pradesh Police pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2024 on the basis of scrutiny of documents, Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) conducted on 26.06.2025 and the Notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, calling upon the shortlisted candidates to appear in the written examination for the posts of Head Constable and Constable under the compassionate appointment scheme, on the ground that the conduct of PET and written test for compassionate appointment is contrary to the Schemes of the Compassionate Appointment. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Department under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide Memorandum dated 12.07.2001, which regulates appointment on compassionate ground to dependent family members of Government servants who have died-in-harness or retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving their families in penury and without any means of livelihood, Page No.# 17/32 with the object of relieving the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant from financial destitution and helping them overcome the immediate financial crisis. 4. The Director General of Police, vide notice dated 04.02.2021, issued a general information to all applicants seeking appointment on compassionate ground, informing that the Police Department would conduct recruitment under the compassionate appointment scheme and had uploaded the list of candidates who have already applied, while granting 15 (fifteen) days’ time to those intending applicants who have not yet submitted their applications in the prescribed format. Thereafter, vide notice dated 11.02.2022, all applicants were informed that assessment and verification of the financial/economic status of the applicants would be conducted at the respective district/unit where the deceased Government servant last served prior to his or her death. Subsequently, vide notice dated 06.07.2022, the applicants who had applied under the compassionate appointment scheme in the Police Department were directed to appear before the Committee at Police Headquarters, Itanagar for Physical Standard Test (PST) along with all requisite documents. Further, vide notice dated 10.08.2022, the applicants were informed that separate guidelines for compassionate appointment in respect of the Police Department were proposed to be framed for approval of the Government and accordingly, the ongoing process for compassionate appointment was kept in abeyance until further orders. 5. After a lapse of eight months, a notice dated 28.04.2023 was issued in respect of 36 vacancies for appointment on compassionate ground in the Arunachal Pradesh Police, whereby the applicants were directed to produce all relevant documents before the Board as and when called for. Thereafter, vide Page No.# 18/32 notice dated 08.06.2024, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), Arunachal Pradesh Police, introduced two additional criteria, namely Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Written Examination Test, under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme of 2022. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent authorities have failed to apply the Compassionate Appointment Scheme of 2001, which governs appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the vacancies which had arisen prior to the coming into force of the new guidelines of 2022 and have instead issued notices introducing Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and written test in terms of the 2022 guidelines, despite the fact that the said guidelines do not themselves contemplate such tests for compassionate appointment. It is, therefore, contended that the scheme/guidelines in force at the relevant point of time ought to have been applied, as per settled principle that the applicable rules/policy is the one prevailing at the time the cause of action arose. 7. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent authorities have issued the impugned notices illegally by directing all the applicants to undergo a selection process, whereas the applications of the petitioners ought to have been considered and evaluated strictly in accordance with the policy and scheme prevalent at the time of death of the Government employee or, in any case, at the time of consideration of their applications. He submits that consideration of the applications under the new guidelines, including the requirement to undergo PET followed by a written examination test, which is not contemplated either under the old or the new policy governing compassionate appointment, is wholly illegal and unsustainable. He submits that the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family member of a Page No.# 19/32 Government servant who dies in harness or retires on medical grounds, thereby leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood, so as to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it overcome the immediate crisis. He further submits that the 2001 policy provides for limited eligibility criteria namely educational qualification, PST and assessment of the condition of indigence and destitution, which adequately serve the purpose and object of the scheme. 8. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the financial condition and state of destitution of the dependent family are required to be duly considered while examining applications for compassionate appointment in terms of the relevant scheme, whereas in the present case no such consideration has been made and instead all the applicants have been called for PET and written test, contrary to the policy/scheme, thereby defeating the very object of compassionate appointment. It is therefore submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in resorting to PET followed by written test for appointment on compassionate ground, pursuant to the impugned notices and orders, is liable to be interfered with and a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to grant appointment to the petitioners on compassionate ground in terms of the applicable policy/scheme. 9. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submission has relied on the following judgments: (i). Raj Kumar and Ors. vs. Shakti Raj and Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527. (ii). Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138. Page No.# 20/32 (iii). Jomba Ingo vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh& 4 Ors., WP(C)304/2022, dated 23.02.2026. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, for State respondents, submits that that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process inasmuch as petitioners Nos. 4 to 68 have participated in the PET and have not qualified, while petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 have already appeared in the written examination after qualifying the PET. Some of the petitioners are in fact not eligible for the post of Constable as they have not passed Class X, as required under the compassionate appointment scheme and the applicable recruitment rules. Therefore, it is submitted that once a candidate has taken a calculated chance by participating in the recruitment process, and thereafter, having found the result not palatable, cannot challenge the selection process and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. 11. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that the selection process for appointment on compassionate ground is being conducted in accordance with the Government Office Memorandum dated 08.04.2023. Clause 5(b) of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment provides that an applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Constable prescribes the educational qualification of Class X pass or equivalent from a recognized Board, along with PST, PET, vision standards, medical fitness test and a written examination. Having regard to the nature of the post of Constable, the applicants are required to be physically fit and possess the requisite educational qualification, which is mandatory for effective performance of duties relating to maintenance of law and order and discharge of police functions. It is therefore Page No.# 21/32 submitted that the respondent authorities have rightly decided to conduct the selection process, including PST, PET and written examination, for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the applicants. 12. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the guidelines and scheme for compassionate appointment are not suitable in the case of the Police Department, as the requirements and criteria are different from those applicable to other departments and the number of applicants is substantially higher in comparison. Therefore, a separate set of guidelines was suggested for appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the Police Department. 13. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the following authorities: (i). State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Premlata, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30. (ii). State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar and Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLinne SC 1706. (iii). Anurag Yadav and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 Supreme (All) 630. (iv). State of UP and Ors. vs. Geeta Rani, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 2923. (v). Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 319. 14. Ms. Y. Gao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8, while adopting the submissions of the learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that since Page No.# 22/32 respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have already participated in the selection process including the written examination, the authorities may be directed to declare the result. 15. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the materials available on record have been carefully perused. 16. The petitioners are aggrieved by the introduction of Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and written test in the selection process for compassionate appointment vide an advertisement dated 08.06.2024 and the subsequent notifications issued by the respondent authorities. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the said procedure is contrary to the Compassionate Appointment Schemes. It is contended that the scheme contemplates consideration only of the indigence of the family of the deceased Government servant and the eligibility and suitability of the applicant in terms of the relevant recruitment rules and does not envisage any competitive selection process such as written examination or inter se comparative assessment of candidates, compassionate appointment being intended as a measure to provide immediate relief to the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the immediate crisis. 17. The issue which is required to be considered in the present writ petition is whether the action of the respondent authorities in introducing PET and written examination in the process of selection for compassionate appointment, pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2024 and subsequent notifications, is in consonance with the Compassionate Appointment Schemes of 2001 and 2022 as well as the applicable recruitment rules governing the field, or whether Page No.# 23/32 the same amounts to deviation from the object and scope of the said scheme which provides for consideration of indigence, eligibility and suitability of the applicants for appointment on compassionate ground. 18. It is true that the object of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to provide appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family member of a Government servant who die in harness or retires on medical grounds, thereby leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood, so as to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it overcome the immediate crisis. The scheme provides for limited eligibility criteria namely educational qualification, PST and assessment of the condition of indigence and destitution, which adequately serve the purpose and object of the scheme. 19. The State of Arunachal Pradesh has framed a Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2001. Clause 5 thereof lays down the eligibility conditions as follows: “5. ELIGIBILITY. a) The family is indigent and deserved immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution, and b) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects. Under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Compassionate appointments are exempted from (Illegible) of the following requirements: a) Recruitment procedure: (Illegible) selection commission of the Employment Exchange. b) Clearance from the Surplus Cell of the Deptt. Of Personnel and Training/Directorate General of Employment and Training. Page No.# 24/32 c) The ban orders on filling up of posts issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).” 20. Clause-12 Provides the “Procedure” which is reproduced hereinunder: “12. PROCEDURE. a) The proforma as in Annexure may be used by Ministries/Departments/Offices for ascertaining necessary information and processing the cases of compassionate appointment. b) The Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office should meet the members of the family of the Government servant in question immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant should be called in person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him. c) An application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be considered in the light of instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Training on the subject by a committee of officers considering of 3 officers one Chairman and 2 members in the rank of Joint Secretary/Dy. Secy. In the Ministry/Department. The Welfare Officer may also be taken as one of the Members/Chairman of the Committee Depending upon his rank. The committee may meet during the second week of every month to consider cases received during the previous month. The applicant may also be granted personal hearing by the committee if necessary for better appreciation of the facts of the cases. d) Recommendation of the committee should be placed before the competent authority for a decision. If the competent authority disagrees with the committee's recommendation, the case may be referred to the next higher authority for a decision.” 21. Subsequently, the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment was revised and notified vide Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2022. As regards “Eligibility” Page No.# 25/32 under Clause 5 of the said scheme, the same is pari materia with Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2001. 22. Clause 13 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2022 lays down the “Procedure”, which is more elaborate than the Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2001, which is reproduced hereinunder: “13. PROCEDURE (i). The Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office or a senior officer may be deputed to meet the family members of the deceased Government Servant and apprise them of the terminal benefits available to the family. This may be done at the earliest possible, preferably, within 30 days of death. ii) In case it is observed by the Welfare Officer/Senior Officer that the condition of the family of the deceased Government Servant is indigent, the family should also be apprised of the scheme for compassionate appointment. iii) In such cases, the Welfare Officer or any other Officer would assist the family member of the deceased Government servant in applying for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application should be made in the format prescribed as in Annexure, All assistance should be extended to enable such family member to fill the Application Form for compassionate appointment. The Applicant should be advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him. The Applicant should also be given detailed information of the posts to which they can apply. iv) The Administration shall satisfy itself regarding the correctness of the details entered in the Application form and family income and other details computed for processing the Application. During scrutiny, if any additional details or information having a bearing on the case, emerge, the same should be added as supplementary Note to the Application. v) Every application found to be in order, should be acknowledged by assigning a unique Registration number. All pending Applications should also be assigned unique registration number. This may be done within 2 to 3 weeks of time. Once a unique registration number has been assigned to Page No.# 26/32 an application, the Applicant, including those whose applications are pending, may be informed through email or other forms of communication (including digital modes of communication) of their Unique Application Registration Number. vi) Some Departments such as CBIC, D/o Posts, D/o Defence have devised their own point based merit systém, for processing claims for compassionate appointment. In order to bring in transparency and objectivity in dealing with such claims, all Ministries/Departments, who have not yet developed such a system, may do, so by devising their own point based merit system for assessing the merit of the claims of compassionate appointments. vii) While informing the Applicants of the registration number of their Application, they may also be informed of the likely number of vacancies likely to be available to be filled on compassionate grounds as well as be provided with a copy of the point based merit system. viii) To consider the various applications and to recommend individual applicant for grant of compassionate appointment, a Committee, comprising three members (one Chairman and two Members), may be constituted. The Committee may be chaired by an Officer not below the rank of Director/Deputy Secretary in the Ministry/Department and officers of equivalent rank in the case of attached and subordinate offices.” 23. The recruitment rules, namely the General Arunachal Pradesh Service, Assistant Sub-Inspector (Civil Police/IRBn), Head Constable (Civil Police/AAPBn/IRBn) and Constable (Civil Police/AAPBn/IRBn), Group C, Non- Gazetted (Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2022 (in short The Recruitment Rules, 2022) regulates the recruitment to the post of Constable. Schedule-VI thereof prescribes the educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits and inter alia, provides for educational qualification, PST, PET, eye vision and medical fitness test, as well as a written test comprising General English, General Knowledge and Elementary Mathematics. 24. Bare reading of the above procedure for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground and Clause 5 of the Scheme, as well as Clause 13 of Page No.# 27/32 the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2022, shows that the entire emphasis of the scheme is on expeditious consideration of the indigent condition of the family of the deceased Government servant and facilitating immediate relief by way of appointment, subject to the applicant being otherwise eligible and suitable for the post under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The scheme does not contemplate any competitive selection process inter se amongst eligible applicants, nor does it prescribe any written examination or merit-based comparative evaluation in the nature of a recruitment test. Rather, it envisages a structured administrative assessment of indigence, verification of eligibility and suitability and consideration of applications by a duly constituted committee, with the object of alleviating immediate financial distress of the family of the deceased employee. 25. Explicitly, there is no requirement under the scheme to undergo a written test as a condition precedent for compassionate appointment and the introduction of such a test is not traceable to the scheme itself. However, Clause-5 requires that the applicant must be “eligible and suitable for the post in all respects” in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the applicant must possess the minimum educational qualification of Class-X pass and must satisfy the prescribed standards of physical fitness, including PST and PET, inasmuch as the post in question is that of Constable in the Arunachal Pradesh Police. The requirement of minimum eligibility and basic physical standards cannot be diluted or dispensed with even under the scheme for compassionate appointment, as the object of the scheme is only to relax the mode of recruitment and not the essential eligibility criteria prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. Thus, the requirement of minimum educational qualification and prescribed physical standards continues to be mandatory and has to be Page No.# 28/32 strictly followed, particularly for posts in a disciplined force like the police, where fitness and basic qualification are directly linked to the nature of duties. 26. The petitioners admittedly participated in the PST/PET in terms of the notification dated 08.06.2024 without any objection and petitioner Nos. 4 to 68 have been found disqualified in the PET except petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, who are stated to have qualified in the PET and appeared for the written test. It is also brought on record that out of 68 petitioners, only 33 petitioners, namely petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20, 24, 26, 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66 & 67, possess the educational qualification of Class-X pass. Thus, the petitioners who do not possess the minimum educational qualification cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground even under the applicable policy, as they fail to satisfy the threshold eligibility condition of “eligibility and suitability” under Clause 5 of the Scheme read with the Recruitment Rules governing the post of Constable. The scheme does not contemplate relaxation of essential educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and therefore, in the absence of such eligibility, their claim for compassionate appointment is not maintainable at the threshold itself. 27. Be that as it may, the petitioners having participated in the selection process, including PST/PET, without protest and having taken a conscious and calculated chance, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the selection process merely because the outcome of the PET is not palatable to them. The law is well settled that a candidate who voluntarily participates in a selection process, with full knowledge of the procedure involved, is estopped from questioning the same after being unsuccessful therein. Accordingly, except for petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, who have proceeded further in the process, the Page No.# 29/32 challenge to the selection process at the instance of the remaining petitioners is not sustainable. 28. In the case of Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, it has been held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then merely because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. The said principle has been consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the result of the selection process cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated therein and has taken a chance to get selected, but ultimately finds himself unsuccessful. 29. The authorities relied upon by the respondents (supra) clearly indicate that compassionate appointment, though a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased Government servant, is not dehors the Recruitment Rules and remains strictly subject to the eligibility and suitability conditions prescribed for the post in question. The decisions in Premlata(supra) and Geeta Rani (supra) specifically hold that in the context of police service, fulfilment of physical efficiency tests and other standards prescribed under the recruitment rules is mandatory, and failure to satisfy the same disentitles a candidate from appointment. The judgment in Karunesh Kumar (supra) reiterates the settled principle that a candidate who voluntarily participates in a selection process without objection cannot subsequently challenge the same after being unsuccessful, which applies squarely to the petitioners who participated in the PST/PET. Further, Anurag Yadav (supra) underscores the necessity of maintaining strict physical standards in police Page No.# 30/32 recruitment having regard to the nature of duties in a disciplined force, while Krishna Kumar (supra) affirms that consideration must be strictly in accordance with the rules in force at the time of consideration and that no vested right accrues contrary to the applicable rules. Thus, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions collectively support the position that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed in derogation of the Recruitment Rules and prescribed eligibility criteria, including physical standards and structured selection processes. 30. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not advance their case in the facts of the present matter, as they are rendered in a different context and do not deal with the issues arising herein, namely the application of recruitment rules and eligibility conditions for compassionate appointment in a disciplined force. In Raj Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a vitiated selection process and the consequence of deviation from governing rules, and did not lay down any principle enabling relaxation of eligibility under recruitment rules in compassionate appointment. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal(supra), while the limited scope of compassionate appointment was explained, the decision itself emphasises the requirement of eligibility and suitability under the applicable rules and does not support any claim for appointment dehors such rules. The decision in Jomba Ingo (supra) deals only with procedural aspects of processing applications under the scheme and does not consider or restrict the application of recruitment rules prescribing essential qualifications and physical standards. Thus, the said judgments do not support the petitioners’ challenge to the selection process or the requirement of compliance with the recruitment rules. 31. Reverting back to the present case, the policy for appointment on Page No.# 31/32 compassionate ground admittedly does not explicitly provide for PST/PET and written test for appointment on compassionate ground, however, it provides the eligibility criteria which requires that the applicant must be eligible and suitable in all respects under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The relevant Recruitment Rules, namely the Recruitment Rules, 2022, prescribe that a candidate for the post of Constable must possess the minimum educational qualification of Class- X pass and must undergo PST and PET followed by a written examination. 32. The scheme for compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased Government servant suffering from financial hardship and indigence and is ordinarily not intended to apply the rigour of a full-fledged competitive selection process. However, since the policy itself mandates that the applicant must be eligible and suitable under the relevant Recruitment Rules, the requirement of compliance with the minimum standards prescribed under the said rules, including PST/PET and other essential eligibility conditions, cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the scheme. That apart, the petitioners, having been aware of the applicable policy and having voluntarily participated in the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 08.06.2024, cannot now be permitted to turn around and contend that the procedure adopted is illegal merely on the ground that the scheme does not expressly provide for PST/PET and written examination and are thus estopped from challenging the recruitment process after having taken a conscious and calculated chance. 33. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that the decision of the respondent authorities to conduct PST/PET and written examination for assessing suitability for appointment to the post of Constable on compassionate ground cannot be faulted. The Scheme itself Page No.# 32/32 makes eligibility and suitability under the relevant Recruitment Rules a condition precedent, and therefore, adherence to the standards prescribed under the Recruitment Rules cannot be held to be illegal or contrary to the Scheme. 34. Thus, the Notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, and the Result Notification dated 21.07.2025 issued by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2024, warrant no interference. 35. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant