Anand Pathak, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3378 of 2024, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that petitioner filed the petition seeking compassionate appointment in Police Department because of death of his father, namely, Umesh Prasad, who was working as a Constable (Trademan) in Special Armed Forces and was posted at 13th Battalion, SAF, Kampoo, Gwalior. He died in harness on 02.11.2019. Petitioner made an application thereafter for grant of compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner was earlier tried in two criminal cases, in which, one case was for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506(II), 34 of IPC, whereas another offence was more serious purportedly under Sections 354/34 and 294 of IPC. In first case, he was acquitted because witnesses did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. Same was with another case, where complainant/victim did not support the prosecution case, therefore, compassionate appointment was declined. Petitioner preferred petition vide W.P. No.1276/2022, by which, matter was remanded back for reconsideration. After reconsideration, case of the petitioner was again found unsustainable for appointment, therefore, the claim was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred petition vide W.P. No.3378/2024 but the same was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. It is submission of counsel for appellant in the appeal that appellant is innocent and it is a case of compassionate appointment, therefore, compassion should have been displayed by the respondent. It is further submitted that many other persons have already been appointed despite having criminal case against them. Learned Writ Court ignored this aspect and caused illegality. Since the petitioner acquittal in both the criminal cases, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 he deserves to be appointed as a Constable on compassionate basis.

4. Counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and submits that appellant faced serious charges. One offence was of moral turpitude also because as per allegation, he along with his friend visited a Garba Pandal and eveteased the girls. When one of the brothers of a girl tried to intervene, then appellant and his friend mishandled them. Although acquittal was recorded, but since it was a case of moral turpitude, therefore, learned Writ Court rightly considered the case and passed the impugned order.

5. At this stage, counsel for the appellant appeared before this Court and submitted that no instructions are given by the appellant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. Counsel for appellant filed the writ appeal and appeared before this Court. On 10.02.2026 counsel for appellant was not ready with the case, therefore, he sought one day's time to prepare the case. This Court in the interest of justice gave adjournment and posted the matter today. However, appellant again wants to get the case adjourned somehow, therefore, the contention of appellant stands rejected and matter is decided on its own merits.

8. In the case in hand, appellant was implicated and charged for grievous offence. So far as the appointment in police department is concerned, one offence was of Section 354 of IPC, which contains moral turpitude. Allegation in the matter appeared to be very ugly. Screening Committee recorded the following findings against the appellant while deciding the case:-





9. All these aspects were taken care of by learned Writ Court and after applying the correct ratio of different judgments pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685, State of M.P. and others Vs. Parvez Khan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591 and Avtar Singh (supra) came to the conclusion that no case is made out by the appellant for further proceedings regarding appointment.

10. We cannot forget that it is case of compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because a person gets appointment de hors statutory rules for appointment and without facing regular and open competition. Purpose of compassionate appointment is benevolent in nature, to give immediate succour to the family and to help the family out of financial distress.

11. As such, when appellant is seeking compassionate appointment, then his conduct should be over and above the Board so that compassion shown by the authorities must be reciprocated in correct perspective. Tainted antecedents renders the case of appellant vulnerable. Here appellant is 32 years of age when writ petition was filed and by now he must be 34-35 years of age.

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, tainted with such criminal record, authorities rightly came to the conclusion about ouster of appellant from police department. Such person cannot be appointed in police department when faced with charge containing moral turpitude.

13. In cumulative analysis, impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned writ Court stands affirmed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed.