Court Declares Provisions Under U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules, 2015 Reasonable and Non-Arbitrary, Rejecting Challenges on Grounds of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In a significant judgment dated September 2, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh) upheld the constitutional validity of certain provisions relating to compassionate appointments under the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015. The judgment came on a batch of writ petitions filed by dependants of deceased police personnel challenging the limitation of compassionate appointments to 5% of direct recruitment posts and the requirement of objective type tests where the number of applicants exceeds vacancies.
The petitioners contended that the note appended to Rule 5(1) of the 2015 Rules, imposing a 5% cap on compassionate appointments, was ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16, and 309 of the Constitution. They also challenged the government order dated September 18, 2015, which mandated objective type tests for compassionate appointment candidates when applications exceed available posts, arguing that it diluted the very purpose of compassion and imposed unreasonable restrictions.
The Court examined the provisions in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and relevant prior judgments, including Ashish Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. (2021), Himanshu Yadav v. State of U.P. (2023), and Ankur Gautam v. State of U.P. (2019). It noted that the 5% cap is a reasonable limitation aimed at balancing compassionate appointments with competitive recruitment, preventing the undue filling of vacancies solely on compassionate grounds which would undermine merit-based selection processes.
Addressing the objective test requirement, the Court held that when the number of candidates exceeds the posts reserved for compassionate appointments, conducting an objective type test is a fair and transparent mechanism that ensures merit-based selection among compassionate applicants themselves. This procedure avoids disputes and allegations of favoritism or backdoor entries, without negating the compassionate intent.
The Court also deprecated the practice of accumulating compassionate appointment vacancies over multiple years to circumvent the 5% cap. Instead, the cap must be applied annually based on vacancies arising each year, a view consistent with earlier rulings.
Rejecting the petitioners' submissions, the Court concluded that the provisions do not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as they are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It emphasized the presumption in favor of constitutionality of subordinate legislation and the burden on challengers to prove invalidity, which was not discharged here.
Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, thereby upholding the government's policy framework on compassionate appointments in the police service.
This judgment provides clarity on the legal validity of the compassionate appointment policy in Uttar Pradesh police recruitment, balancing compassion with fairness and transparency in public service employment.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment under Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 and related Government Orders upheld with specific reference to provisions imposing a 5% cap and objective type tests for selection. These provisions are not unreasonable or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 Rule 5(1), Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, Government Order dated 18th September 2015
Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976991
