Writ Petition No. 102208 of 2025 | Court: Karnataka High Court | Nature: Public Law - Compassionate Appointment | Subject Matter: Age Relaxation for Widow in Compassionate Employment
FACTS
Lakshmavva Goshellanavar, a widow seeking compassionate appointment, approached the Karnataka High Court after her application was rejected by the North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC). The petitioner was the sole survivor of her deceased husband who had been employed with NWKRTC, and significantly, she had no children to depend upon for financial support. Her application for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that she had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years prescribed for such appointments.
The factual matrix revealed the harsh reality faced by the petitioner - being a childless widow without any means of livelihood after her husband's death. The NWKRTC, being respondent No. 2 in the case, had mechanically applied the age limit rule without considering the special circumstances of the petitioner's case. The petitioner argued that the rigid application of age limits in her case would result in extreme hardship and violation of her right to livelihood, especially considering her status as a childless widow with no alternative support system.
The case highlighted the conflict between administrative rules and humanitarian considerations in compassionate appointment cases. The petitioner's situation was particularly compelling as she represented the most vulnerable category - a widow without children who had lost her sole breadwinner and was being denied employment opportunity due to technical age restrictions. The facts established that the rejection was based purely on age considerations without any evaluation of the petitioner's exceptional circumstances or the underlying purpose of compassionate appointment schemes.
ISSUES
The primary legal issue was whether rigid adherence to upper age limits in compassionate appointment cases violates the principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees when applied to vulnerable categories like childless widows. The Court had to determine if the NWKRTC's mechanical rejection of the application without considering the petitioner's special circumstances was legally sustainable.
A subsidiary issue was whether compassionate appointment policies should incorporate flexibility to address exceptional cases involving extreme hardship, particularly for widows without children. The Court needed to examine if the existing policy framework adequately addressed the humanitarian objectives underlying compassionate appointment schemes or required reformulation to prevent injustice.
The case also raised broader questions about the interpretation of compassionate appointment rules - whether they should be applied mechanically or with a humane approach considering individual circumstances. The Court had to balance administrative convenience and rule uniformity against constitutional principles of equality and right to livelihood for vulnerable sections of society.
LAW
The legal framework governing compassionate appointments in Karnataka includes the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, which provide for appointment of dependents of deceased government employees to mitigate immediate financial hardship. These rules typically prescribe age limits for eligibility, with the upper age limit generally being 45 years, though provision exists for relaxation in exceptional circumstances.
Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality before law was central to the case, as arbitrary application of rules without considering individual circumstances violates this fundamental right. Article 21, encompassing the right to livelihood as part of the right to life, was relevant as denial of compassionate appointment to a childless widow could threaten her survival and dignity.
The Supreme Court's precedents in cases like State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi established that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted to mitigate immediate financial hardship following the death of the sole breadwinner. However, courts have consistently held that such schemes should be administered fairly and humanely. The principle of reasonableness in administrative action requires that discretionary powers be exercised considering relevant factors and avoiding mechanical application of rules.
Central Government guidelines on compassionate appointment, as referenced in DoPT circulars, provide that "upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be necessary," particularly for widows, establishing the legal basis for flexibility in age restrictions. The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies when policies create reasonable hope of benefit, especially for vulnerable categories.
APPLICATION
The Karnataka High Court applied a humanitarian approach in interpreting compassionate appointment rules, emphasizing that such policies are designed to address extreme hardship and should not be defeated by mechanical application of technical requirements. The Court recognized that the petitioner's case presented exceptional circumstances - being a childless widow with no alternative means of support - that warranted sympathetic consideration rather than rigid rule application.
The Court applied the principle of reasonableness in administrative action, holding that the NWKRTC's rejection without considering the petitioner's special circumstances was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The judges examined the underlying purpose of compassionate appointment schemes, which is to provide immediate relief to families facing financial crisis after the death of the breadwinner, and found that this purpose would be defeated if vulnerable widows were excluded based solely on age.
In applying constitutional principles, the Court emphasized that the right to livelihood under Article 21 requires the state to ensure that its policies do not push vulnerable citizens into destitution. The Court noted that compassionate appointment rules must be interpreted in a manner that serves their humanitarian purpose rather than creating additional barriers for those they are meant to help.
The Court applied the principle of substantive equality, recognizing that treating all cases identically without considering individual circumstances can result in discrimination against the most vulnerable. The judges emphasized that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional mandates and humanitarian considerations in cases involving extreme hardship.
CONCLUSION
The Karnataka High Court directed the Managing Director of NWKRTC to formulate a more humane policy for compassionate appointments that adequately addresses cases involving exceptional hardship, particularly for childless widows who cross age limits due to circumstances beyond their control. The Court specifically ordered consideration of the petitioner's case under relaxed age criteria, recognizing her vulnerable status and lack of alternative support systems.
The Court's decision established important precedents for compassionate appointment cases. It held that age limits in compassionate appointment should not be applied mechanically when dealing with vulnerable categories like childless widows facing extreme hardship. The judgment emphasized that administrative policies must be flexible enough to address exceptional cases while serving their humanitarian objectives.
The practical impact of this decision extends beyond the individual case, as it requires NWKRTC and similar organizations to develop more nuanced policies that consider individual circumstances rather than applying blanket rules. The Court's direction to formulate a humane policy ensures that future cases involving similar hardships receive appropriate consideration.
This judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional rights cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. It establishes that compassionate appointment schemes must be administered with genuine compassion, considering the specific circumstances of applicants rather than mechanically applying eligibility criteria. The decision provides relief not only to the petitioner but also sets a framework for similar cases involving vulnerable applicants who may have been denied compassionate appointments due to technical disqualifications.
The legal significance of this case lies in its reaffirmation that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and humanely, particularly when dealing with policies designed to assist vulnerable populations. It demonstrates judicial commitment to ensuring that the beneficent purposes of social welfare schemes are not defeated by rigid bureaucratic interpretations, thereby upholding both the letter and spirit of compassionate appointment provisions.