State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Rehan Khan
Background
The respondent was given a compassionate appointment as a Junior Assistant after his government-employee father died in service, on the condition that he acquire a computer proficiency certificate and a typing speed of 25 words per minute within a set period (with one extension). He got the computer certificate but failed the typing test twice, and his services were terminated. The Allahabad High Court (Single Judge and then Division Bench) had directed the State to reconsider him for a lower Class IV post instead, relying on an earlier ruling (Mukul Sagar) that took a similar approach.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment and must be strictly confined to the terms of the applicable rules. It is only an entry-level concession, not an open-ended benefit. Since the respondent had failed to meet the mandatory service condition (typing speed) despite being given the extra chance the rules allowed, his termination was lawful, and the High Court had no power to direct his appointment to a different (Class IV) post instead. The Court declared the Mukul Sagar precedent legally incorrect and set aside both the Single Judge's and Division Bench's orders in this case and the connected appeal, dismissing the underlying writ petitions, while clarifying that the person who had already benefited under the wrongly-decided Mukul Sagar case would not be disturbed.
Lesson Learnt
A compassionate appointment is a conditional entry into government service, not a permanent guarantee of a job; if a mandatory qualifying condition attached to the appointment (like a typing test) is not met even after the allowed extension, courts cannot rewrite the terms by ordering placement into a different post.