Private Institutions Can Provide Compassionate Appointment But Financial Burden Will Not Lie With The State: MP High Court Clarifies

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in a case presided by Justice Vivek Jain, dismissed a plea challenging the denial of compassionate appointment. The petitioner, Kaushal Kumar Kachhawaha, sought the court's intervention following an order from the District Education Officer that allowed the private institution where his deceased father worked to appoint him on compassionate grounds but without state-funded salary support.

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25164 of 2019 against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, challenging the order dated September 23, 2017. The order communicated by the District Education Officer, respondent No. 5, informed the private institution that while they were free to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds, the grant-in-aid for his salary would not be provided by the state.

Petitioner's father, a lower division teacher, passed away on May 30, 2019, while serving at a private institution that received grant-in-aid from the state. Citing executive instructions dated March 26, 1997, the petitioner argued that he was entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment under the grant-in-aid scheme.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the state's executive instructions mandated compassionate appointments for dependents of teachers in grant-in-aid institutions. He contended that the petitioner's father received his salary through such aid, and thus, the petitioner had a right to be considered for a similar appointment with a state-supported salary.

The state's counsel countered that the 2000 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, eliminated the provision for new appointments under the grant-in-aid scheme. The amendment necessitated private institutions to independently fund their staff salaries. This legislative change was upheld by the Supreme Court, which specified that only those teachers already in service before April 1, 2000, would continue to receive benefits under the unamended act.

The court noted that both parties acknowledged the amended act's enforcement from April 1, 2000, which effectively converted grant-in-aid posts into dying cadre posts. The key issue was whether the petitioner could claim a compassionate appointment with a state-funded salary under the amended act.

Justice Vivek Jain reviewed the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6362/2004, which upheld the amendment and restricted grant-in-aid benefits to those in service before the amendment date. The petitioner, seeking appointment post-amendment, fell outside this protection. The court considered a similar case, Smt. Raishri Ragase vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (WP No. 845/2017), where the coordinate bench's decision supporting compassionate appointments under old policies was modified by the Division Bench. The modification clarified that private institutions could appoint dependents on compassionate grounds, but the financial burden would lie with the institution, not the state.

Justice Jain concluded that the petitioner's request for a state-supported compassionate appointment lacked merit under the amended act. The court observed that the petitioner's situation aligned with the precedent cases where the compassionate appointment policy under the unamended act was deemed non-applicable post-amendment.

The court dismissed the petition, affirming that while the private institution could appoint the petitioner, it must do so without expecting state-funded salary support. The ruling underscores the significant impact of legislative amendments on employment policies and the financial autonomy of private educational institutions.

Case title: Kaushal Kumar Kachhawaha Versus The State Of M.P. & Ors.

Case Citation: WRIT PETITION NO.25164 OF 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order