CHENNAI: Public sympathy rightly demands a humane response, but constitutional govt insists that compassion remain subject to law. The interim order of the Madurai bench of Madras high court permitting the Tamil Nadu govt to issue temporary appointment orders to legal heirs of those who lost their lives in the Karur tragedy has opened an important constitutional debate. The immediate controversy concerns only a handful of appointments. The larger issue is whether the state may distribute public employment as a measure of rehabilitation where no employer-employee relationship existed.
No civilised society can remain indifferent to families devastated by a public tragedy. A welfare state is expected to provide generous compensation, educational assistance, healthcare and long-term rehabilitation. These measures reflect the Constitution’s commitment to social justice. Public employment, however, occupies a different constitutional plane. A govt post is not an economic benefit that may be granted out of sympathy. It is a public office held in trust for all eligible citizens and governed by the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.This distinction explains why Supreme Court has treated compassionate appointment as a narrow constitutional exception. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana (1994), the Court held that compassionate appointment exists only to relieve the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of a govt servant in harness. It is neither a hereditary entitlement nor an alternative mode of recruitment. The Constitution bench in State of Karnataka vs Umadevi (3) (2006) reaffirmed that equality of opportunity in public employment is a foundational constitutional value, while N C Santhosh vs State of Karnataka (2020) reiterated that compassionate appointment must remain strictly within the governing policy.The Karur case departs from that settled jurisprudence in one crucial aspect. The beneficiaries are not dependents of govt employees, and no employer-employee relationship links them to the state. The govt is therefore not acting as an employer discharging a limited obligation to the family of a deceased employee. Instead, it seeks to use public employment itself as a measure of rehabilitation following a public tragedy. That raises a distinct constitutional question.The state may rely upon Article 162 of the Constitution, which confers broad executive authority to formulate welfare policies. Govts must retain sufficient flexibility to respond to extraordinary disasters. Yet executive power does not exist in isolation. Every exercise of that power must satisfy the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness and nonarbitrariness.That brings the discussion to Article 14. Since E P Royappa and Maneka Gandhi, Supreme Court has recognised that Article 14 is not confined to reasonable classification; it also prohibits arbitrary state action. The Constitution’s concern is therefore not with compassion but with selectivity. If the state grants public employment to families affected by one tragedy while denying the same benefit to victims of other comparable disasters, it must identify an objective constitutional principle that justifies the distinction. Sympathy, however genuine, cannot by itself constitute a legally sustainable classification.High court’s interim order reflects an appreciation of this constitutional tension. By permitting temporary appointments while keeping the constitutional challenge alive, the bench has balanced immediate humanitarian concerns with the need for judicial scrutiny. Its final verdict will extend well beyond the Karur tragedy. It will determine whether govts may create a new category of rehabilitation appointments outside the established doctrine of compassionate appointment.If the state believes that exceptional public tragedies sometimes warrant employment-based rehabilitation, the more principled course would be to formulate a comprehensive policy grounded in objective, uniformly applicable criteria. Such a policy would minimise arbitrariness while preserving the constitutional commitment to equal opportunity in public employment.The families affected by the Karur tragedy deserve every measure of support that a welfare state can legitimately provide. Whether that support may constitutionally include public employment is a completely different question.High court’s task is therefore to reaffirm a foundational constitutional principle: even the noblest impulses of the state must remain subject to the rule of law.(The writer is an advocate in Madras high court)
