Executive Order for Uniformity in Compassionate Appointment Decisions Validated by Court
In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the Assam government's executive order aimed at standardizing procedures for compassionate appointments within the state. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Abu Ansar Azad and others, challenging the validity of the executive order issued on August 30, 2025. The petitioners contended that the executive order's stipulations, particularly those in Column B(ii), were arbitrary and encroached upon judicial directives.
Justice Kaushik Goswami, presiding over the case, emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, noting that courts cannot interfere with executive decisions unless they are unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary. The order aligns with the principle that economic and administrative policies fall within the executive domain, as established by previous Supreme Court judgments.
The petitioners argued that the executive order unfairly imposed a cut-off date, affecting their applications for compassionate appointments. However, the court found that the classification under Column B(ii) was rational and administratively feasible, ensuring uniformity and consistency in decision-making across District Level Committees (DLCs) and State Level Committees (SLCs).
Compassionate appointments, traditionally viewed as a welfare measure rather than a vested right, were previously superseded by the compassionate family pension scheme effective from April 1, 2017. The executive order, according to the court, does not override judicial orders but harmonizes with them to facilitate efficient administrative processes.
Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, the court underscored that the government is entitled to set policies in public interest, including setting cut-off dates for administrative uniformity. Such measures cannot be deemed illegal unless proven to be capricious or irrational.
The court further clarified that its previous orders directing "consideration in accordance with law" do not preclude the state from issuing general policies applicable to all similar cases. The executive order complies with judicial directions, ensuring that applications for compassionate appointments are processed strictly in terms of government policy and rules.
The ruling reinforces that compassionate appointments are not a source of recruitment but a concession to address immediate hardships. Thus, the executive order's stipulations are valid and applicable, as they are founded on logical administrative considerations and consistent with judicial pronouncements.
The dismissal of the petition signifies the court's endorsement of the government's approach to compassionate appointments, emphasizing the importance of uniform standards and processes in administrative decision-making.
Bottom Line:
Policy decisions on compassionate appointments and standard operating procedures issued by the Government of Assam are upheld as rational and administratively feasible, harmonizing with judicial directions and ensuring uniformity in decision-making.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Abu Ansar Azad v. State of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849448
