Karnataka HC: No Endless Compassion in Higher-Post Claims

The Karnataka High Court has urged the State government to exercise caution when weighing requests from compassionate-grounds appointees seeking movement to higher Group 'C' posts solely on the strength of qualifications exceeding those prescribed for their original posts.

A Division Bench of Justices M. Nagaprasanna and Hema Kulkarni observed that selectively elevating individuals appointed under the compassionate scheme, in a manner inconsistent with the scheme itself, would unsettle administrative discipline and could give rise to valid complaints of unequal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Bench made these remarks while allowing petitions filed by the State government against a March 2026 order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal had directed authorities to consider two candidates, both appointed as second division assistants (SDAs) on compassionate grounds, for first division assistant (FDA) posts because they held higher educational qualifications.

The matter concerned Sathish V. Gulla and Sandeepkumar Vinayakarao Kulkarni. Their fathers, both serving as Bandh Peons in the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, died in harness in 2017. The two were appointed as SDAs, Group 'C' posts, on compassionate grounds in 2018. Later, citing qualifications that included a degree in Mechanical Engineering in one case, they sought FDA appointments and, in 2024, challenged before the tribunal the endorsements rejecting their requests.

The court examined the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, and in particular Rule 6(4), which provides that an appointment once made under the rules is final and that no fresh appointment to a different or higher post is permissible.

Noting that the two individuals had been appointed as SDAs in keeping with the governing scheme, the Bench held that a higher qualification may establish eligibility but does not confer an entitlement to a particular post under a compassionate appointment scheme. The court stated that compassionate appointment is not a reservoir from which benefits can be drawn in perpetuity, and that the law recognises no concept of endless compassion.

On the contention that others had been placed in higher posts, the Bench said Article 14 embodies positive equality and does not perpetuate illegality through negative equality. If the State has erroneously or illegally extended a benefit not sanctioned by the governing scheme, that aberration cannot transform into a legally enforceable right for another person, the court added, observing that one illegality cannot be made the basis for commanding its repetition. The tribunal's order was accordingly set aside.