Person Seeking Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Given Second Chance To Qualify Physical Efficiency Test After Having Failed Once: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that no second chance can be granted to a person seeking compassionate appointment for qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test, having failed it in the first try.

Holding that compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of recruitment, the bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that

“It is essentially to reach immediate succor to a bereaved family. In other words, the sudden passing away of a government servant creates a financial vacuum and it is to lend a helping hand to the genuinely needed members of the bereaved family that an appointment is provided. It is never meant to be a source of conferring any status or an alternate mode of recruitment.”

Case Background

Petitioner's husband was a Head Constable in Civil Police when he died in harness. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment where she was asked to undergo physical efficiency test. Since petitioner could not complete the physical efficiency test within the stipulated time frame, her claim was rejected.

Subsequently, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness. Rules, 1974 for the post of Sub-Inspector.

The Single Judge granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the physical efficiency test and directed that in case she failed the test, she must be accorded a post as per her qualifications.

The order of the Single Judge was challenged by the State on grounds that once the petitioner had failed the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for the Physical Efficiency Test under the 1974 Rules. It was submitted that no second or further opportunity is provided under the Rules of 1974. It was argued that having participated in the Physical Efficiency Test without any objections, the petitioner cannot be granted a second/ further chance.

It was further submitted that the post of Sub-Inspector was higher than the post of Head Constable at which petitioner's husband was and that she could not be granted compassionate appointment at a higher post than her husband's.

Reliance was placed on Clause 2 (5) of the Government Order dated 18.09.2015, which provides for only one to the applicants inclined to be appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme. It was submitted that in absence on any challenge to the G.O. dated 18.09.2015, Single Judge could not have granted a second opportunity to the petitioner-respondent.

Reliance was placed on The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Premlata where the Supreme Court held that 'suitable post' is determined by considering the post held by the deceased employee and the qualification/eligibility criteria for that post. It was held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted at a post higher than that held by the deceased employee even if the applicant has higher educational qualification.

“Suitable post' has to be considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is required to be considered, considering the post held by the deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee, otherwise there shall be no difference/distinction between the appointment on compassionate ground and the regular appointment,” held the Apex Court.

Further, reliance was placed on Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. where the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Premlata to hold that compassionate appointment cannot be granted for a post higher than that held by the deceased employee.

Special Appeal Verdict

The Court held that the since respondent-petitioner had sought compassionate appointment in disciplined force (police force), no relaxation in physical examination could be granted as no relaxation is granted to those who seek direct recruitment in the force. It was observed that if the direct recruits do not complete the tasks assigned in the specified time frame, they are not selected. Accordingly, it was held that “no relaxation is available or to be extended qua the candidate seeking compassionate appointment, who even have a subsequent chance to claim the next lower post within the three months.”

The Court held that since the respondent-petitioner had chosen, of her own free will, to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test and had failed, she cannot be granted a second chance for trying it again.

The Court further held that the respondent-petitioner was not liable to be appointed at the Sub-Inspector even if she qualified the Physical Efficiency Test as her husband was a Head Constable when he died, a post lower than that of a Sub-Inspector.

While allowing the special appeal of the State, the Court observed that the respondent-petitioner was at liberty to apply afresh for compassionate appointment at any suitable post.

Case Title: The State of UP and 5 others v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police) [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 390

Click Here To Read/Download Order