No Policy, No Right — Court Rules Police Cannot Grant Higher Rank on Compassionate Grounds Without Policy Backing: P&H HC

"Compassion Has Limits in Law — Punjab & Haryana High Court Says Police Cannot Appoint on Higher Post Without Legal Sanction" - In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court emphatically held that "in the absence of an express or implied government policy, the Court cannot direct the appointment of an individual to a higher post in the police department merely on compassionate grounds or parity."

Dismissing the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court clarified that "compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to general recruitment rules, strictly confined to the contours of the applicable policy."

“Police Cannot Offer Higher Rank Without Government Policy — Compassion Doesn’t Override Recruitment Rules”: High Court Observes

The petitioner, Neeraj Sharma, sought appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector or at least Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Punjab Police, claiming entitlement based on his father’s service as a spy for the Indian Intelligence Bureau who was captured and imprisoned in Pakistan between 1968 to 1974.

The petitioner argued that certain other similarly situated persons, whose family members had rendered similar services and suffered imprisonment in Pakistan, were granted higher posts in the Punjab Police. On this ground, he demanded parity.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s father’s contributions and sufferings, the Court firmly rejected the claim, stating:

“This Court, in the absence of express or implied policy of the State Government, cannot direct authorities to consider the petitioner for a higher rank, especially when he has already been offered and appointed as Constable.”

The Bench further underscored:

“The law is settled that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule of recruitment. No appointment beyond the scope of the policy can be directed by the Court.”

Petitioner Already Appointed as Constable on Compassionate Grounds

Neeraj Sharma’s father, after returning from Pakistan imprisonment, approached the Punjab Government several times for assistance. Though initially offered financial help, the petitioner later applied for a government job claiming entitlement similar to that given to others in comparable circumstances.

Despite holding qualifications like D. Pharmacy and B.Sc. (Medical), he was offered the post of Constable, which he accepted in 2020. Subsequently, he continued submitting representations seeking elevation to a higher post, claiming parity with others, which were rejected through orders dated 03.12.2021, 03.01.2022, 19.07.2022, 15.05.2023, and 07.02.2024.

“Court Cannot Create a Policy Where None Exists” — Bench Rejects Claim for Higher Post

While advancing his arguments, the petitioner’s counsel admitted candidly that "there is no instruction or policy of the State Government whereunder petitioner can claim a higher rank."

The Court noted: “The respondent, as per its wisdom and considering the factual and family background of the petitioner, offered him the post of Constable which he accepted and joined.”

The Court categorically held: “His representations claiming a higher rank stand rightly rejected by the authorities. The Court has no jurisdiction to command the State to appoint someone on a post that is neither sanctioned by any policy nor supported by law.”

“Compassion Has Legal Boundaries — Appointments Cannot Breach Recruitment Framework”: High Court Reiterates Settled Law

The Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that: “Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is an exception carved out to help families in financial distress upon the death or extreme hardship suffered by a family member in government service. It must strictly conform to the applicable policy.”

In absence of any government policy providing for direct appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector or ASI under such circumstances, the Court observed that no such direction can be issued.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court concluded: “Dismissed.”

The judgment serves as a clear reaffirmation that compassion cannot override recruitment norms, and courts cannot direct appointments to higher ranks without clear legal backing. The decision draws a firm line between sympathy and legality, emphasizing that government jobs, particularly in disciplined forces like the police, must be filled in accordance with established rules and policies, not on discretionary grounds of parity or compassion beyond what the law permits.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2025