The court said that possessing a higher qualification may confer eligibility but does not create an entitlement to a particular post under a compassionate appointment scheme. | Image for representation
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The Karnataka High Court has cautioned that the State government must tread carefully while considering requests from compassionate-grounds appointees for transposition to higher Group ‘C’ posts, merely because they possess educational qualifications higher than those prescribed for the posts to which they were initially appointed.
The court said that picking and choosing individuals appointed under the compassionate scheme for higher posts — contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment — “would not merely disturb administrative discipline, but may also generate legitimate grievances of unequal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.
A Division Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni made these observations while allowing petitions filed by the State government, which had challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s March 2026 order to consider two candidates, appointed as second division assistants (SDAs) on compassionate grounds, for the posts of first division assistants (FDAs) due to their higher educational qualifications.
The cases involved Sathish V. Gulla and Sandeepkumar Vinayakarao Kulkarni, whose fathers, both working as Bandh Peons in the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, died in harness in 2017. Both were subsequently appointed as SDAs (Group ‘C’ posts) on compassionate grounds in 2018. Later, citing their higher qualifications, including a degree in Mechanical Engineering in one case, they sought appointment as FDAs and challenged the endorsements rejecting their requests before the KSAT in 2024.
The court examined the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, particularly Rule 6(4), which states that an appointment once made under the rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different or higher post shall be permissible.
Stating that the two persons were appointed as SDAs squarely in consonance with the governing scheme, the court said that possessing a higher qualification may confer eligibility but does not create an entitlement to a particular post under a compassionate appointment scheme.
“Compassionate appointment is not a reservoir from which benefits can be drawn in perpetuity. There is, in law, no concept of endless compassion,” the court observed.
On claim of the two compassionate-grounds appointees that some other persons were given higher posts, the Court said that “Article 14 embodies positive equality; it does not perpetuate illegality through negative equality.”
“If the State has erroneously or illegally conferred upon some persons a benefit which the governing Scheme does not sanction, such aberration cannot metamorphose into a legally enforceable right in favour of another. One illegality cannot be made the foundation for commanding its repetition,” the Bench observed while setting aside tribunal’s order.
Published – September 23, 2026 08:19 pm IST
