Supreme Court · 2025

Commission, which again find support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9685 of 2007: Riyaz Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 05.1.08.".

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents since found three questions to be incorrect in the part three numerical aptitude bearing question No. 113, 112 and 116, proceeded to consider the deduction in respect of 40 questions asked in part III numerical aptitude whereas entire booklet consisted of 160 questions in four categories Hindi (part I) General Knowledge (part II), Numerical aptitude (part III) and Mental Aptitude (part IV). In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 which prescribed for only written examination and not for any particular qualifying marks in each of the papers that form part of the question series booklet during such examination conducted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed clause 1(3) of the said Government Order which is reproduced hereunder: "(iii) िलिखत परी्षा अगर द्षता मूल्यांकन में सफल अभ्यिथयों की संख्या मृतक आि्शत के रूप में इस पद पर भतर् िकए जाने वाले पदों की संख्या से अिधक है तो भतर् बोडर् ्षारा उन सभी अभ्यिथयों को एक िलिखत परी्षा करायी जाएगी। यः परी्षा वस्तुिन्ि ्ऺकार की होगी एवं इस परी्षा में कोई अहर्कारी अंक नहीं होंगे एवं इस परी्षा को के वल अभ्यिथयों का ्शे्षता कम िनधार्िरत करने के िलए आयोिजत िकया जाएगा िजसके आधार पर उनका अिन्तम रूप से चयन िकया जा सके । यह परी्षा 400 अंको की होगी िजसमें सामान्य िहन्दी/सामान्य ्ञान, संख्यात्मक एवं मानिसक योग्यता/तािकक परी्षा/बुि्धलिब्ध परी्षा िवषयों के वस्तुिन्ष ्ऺकार के ्ऺश्न होंगे। इस परी्षा को कराये जाने की ्ऺि्वया बोडर् ्षारा िनधार्िरत की जाएगी। इस परी्षा में सभी अभ्यिथयों ्षारा ्ऺाप्त अंकों के ्शे्षता ्वम के अनुसार एक सूची (Merit List) बनायो जाएगी। यिद इस ्शे्षता सूची में दो या अिधक अभ्यिथयों के अंक समान हो तो उस दशा में उनकी वरीयता िनधार्िरत करने की ्ऺि्वया िनम्न ्ऺकार होगी :- (1) अगर अभ्यथर् के पास इस पद की सेवा िनयमावली के अन्तगर्त कोई अिधमानी अहर्ता हो तो िनयमावली में अिधमानी अहर्ता के िदये गये ्वम के अनुसार। 3 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 (2) अगर उसके बाद भी ्शे्षता समान हो तो अिधक आयु के अनुसार । (3) अगर उसके बाद भी ्शे्षता समान हो तो अं्षेजी वणर्माला के नाम के कम के अनुसार ।" (emphasis added)

5. On the contrary defending the stand taken by the respondents learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Pal argued that petitioner since failed to secure marks matching with cut off of the last selected candidate in the category, could not be placed in the select list. He argued that marks were correctly awarded to him in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Aghrari (supra). Shri Pal argued that the question papers of Public Service Commission was in issue before the Division bench which consisted of 120 questions in the same series with 2.5 marks for each question and that was how the entire booklet series was considered as one question paper and accordingly deductions were made as per calculation of marks qua the correct answers by removing/ deducting three incorrect answers, whereas in the present case the question booklet series consisted four different papers of Hindi, General Knowledge, Numerical Aptitude, and Mental Ability and since the relevant rules for the post of Sub-Inspector concerned U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules 2015 rules are applicable which provide for minimum qualification marks of 50 % in each of the papers, the deduction can be made only in respect of the relevant question papers consisting on 40 questions and will not be applicable in general to the entire booklet series which consisted of 160 questions. The relevant Rule 14 (b) is reproduced hereunder: "(ग) ऑनलाइन िलिखत परी्षा के ्ऺत्येक िवषय में 50 ्ऺितशत अंक ्ऺाप्त करने में िवफल रहने वाले अभ्यथर्, भतर् के िलए पा्ऴ नहीं होंगे। उपरो्व पिरिस्थितयों के अधीन जहां कही इस िनयम में शब्द 'अंक' आया हो उसका तात्पयर् ्ऺसामान्यीकृ त अंक होगा अथार्त् ऑनलाइन िलिखत परी्षा में ्ऺितभाग करने वाले समस्त अभ्यिथयों के ्ऺत्येक िवषय के मूल ्ऺाप्तांकों का ्ऺसामान्यीकरण करने के प्ाात् िजन अभ्यिथयों के ्ऺसामान्यीकृ ता ्ऺाप्तांक ्ऺश्न-प्ऴ के ्ऺत्येक िवषय में 50 ्ऺितशत नहीं होंगे, वे अभ्यथर् चयन ्ऺि्वया के २ चरण में ्ऺितभाग करने हेतु अहर्/पा्ऴ नहीं होंगे।"

6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that 4 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 petitioner can be offered compassionate appointment to any other vacancy of a lower rank in terms of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 vide its clause 5, which is reproduced hereunder: "5-पुिलस िवभाग के चतुथर् ्शेणी पदों पर मृत पुिलस किमयों के आि्शतों की सेवायोजन की ्ऺिकया मृतक आि्शत के चतुथर् ्शेणी पद पर सेवायोजन के संबंध में उनको शैि्षक अहर्ता, न्यूनतम आयु, अन्य अहंताएं व योग्यताएं तत्समय ्ऺचिलत उ्तर ्ऺदेश पुिलस समूह "च" कमर्चारी सेवा िनयमावली में िदए गए ्ऺावधानों के अनुसार होगी । जनपदीय पुिलस के चतुथर् ्शेणी के पदों पर मृतक आि्शत के सेवायोजन को कायर्वाही संबंिधत जनपद के विर्ष पुिलस अधी्षक/पुिलस अधी्षक ्षारा की जाएगी । यिद जनपद में िरि्वयां उपलब्ध न हो तो आि्शतों के सेवा योजन का ्ऺस्ताव संबंिधत जोनल पुिलस महािनरी्षक को भेजा जाएगा जो उसका समायोजन जोन के िकसी अन्य जनपद में वतर्मान िरि्वयों के सापे्ष कराएं गे। इसी ्ऺकार पुिलस िवभाग की िविभन्न इकाईयों जैसे-पीएसी/सीबीसीआईडी, रेिडयो मुख्यालय, अिभसूचना मुख्यालय, रेलवे इत्यािद ्षारा चतुथर् ्शेणी पदों पर मृतक आि्शतों के सेवायोजन की कायर्वाही उनके स्तर से ही की जाएगी। यिद िकसी कायार्लय में चतुथर् ्शेणी की िरि्वयां उपलब्ध न हो तो इसका ्ऺस्ताव इकाई के मुख्यालय को भेजा जाएगा जो अपने स्तर से समायोजन का ्ऺयास करेंगे। िकन्तु अगर जोन स्तर पर या इकाई मुख्यालय स्तर पर िरि्वयों के सापे्ष िरि्व उपलब्ध न हो एवं भतर् िकया जाना सम्भव न हो तो उसका ्ऺस्ताव पुिलस मुख्यालय को भेजा जाएगा जहां पर इसे िरि्वयों का आंकलन कर िकसी जनपद या इकाई में भतर् हेतु भेजा जाएगा। िरि्वयों की गणना करते समय आगामी सम्भािवत िरि्वयों को नहीं जोड़ा जाएगा बिल्क संबंिधत कायार्लय में वतर्मान में िर्वयों के सापे्ष सेवायोजन की कायर्वाही की जाएगी ।"

7. Replying the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel learned counsel for petitioner sought to rely upon another judgment of the Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of this Court in the matter of Matin Rao v. State of U.P. and others Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38524 of 2010 decided on 23.12.2014 which has been brought on record by means of rejoinder affidavit. However, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2015 in which the Single Bench judgment has been set aside.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that even though the Government Order dated

24.11.2015 provides for the procedure for the purposes of method and manner in which the selection is to be held by holding written examination and preparation of select list, but vide clause 1 of the said Government Order it is provided that recruitment shall be held in respect of the post for which provision has been given for direct recruitment 5 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 under the relevant recruitment rules. Clause 3 provides for procedure.

9. Thus, having examined Clause 1 (I)(iii) of the Government Order dated

24.11.2015 in no manner of doubt, it can be said that minimum 50 per cent qualifying marks in each of the paper as is argued to be mandatory, is contemplated for the purposes of preparation of merit list in the written examination conducted for the selection on the post of Sub Inspector is not applicable in compassionate appointment cases and hence, for computation of marks on principles laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrahari (supra), course would be to take all the 160 questions together, to minus three questions of which incorrect answers were prescribed in the model answer key. It is this procedure which would be compatible to compassionate appointment rules to find out actual marks obtained by each such candidates who participated the written examination.

10. There is no quarrel between the parties as to the principle which has been evolved in the judgment of Pawan Kumar Agrahari (supra) for its application in general to the competitive examination for the purposes of holding selection of candidates, whether in general category or compassionate category. Line of distinction that was sought to be drawn only for the reason that four different subject papers were there in the entire booklet series which consisted 160 questions, would be indicative of a fact that these examinations are distinguishable from the examinations conducted by Public Service Commission.

11. While dealing with relevant provision of Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 on the face of it appears to be quite impressive but looking to the procedure prescribed in the same Government Order vide Clause 1(1)(iii) as already reproduced have been in this judgment, when it prescribed that there should be no qualifying marks in the written examination, then these provisions should have been taken to have further 6 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 qualified conditions with qualification of eligibility criterion laid down in Clause 2.

12. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the last cut off marks of the selected candidate. One of the argument that was advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that rules of eligibility and qualification even for the purpose of compassionate appointment since would be governed by relevant statutory service rules as per Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015, the written examination and obtaining qualifying marks thereof should be also taken as one of the eligibility criterion for the purpose of success in the written examination to find place in the selected list.

13. On compassionate appointment, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not demonstrate from the rules that eligibility criterion and the qualification as prescribed under Clause-2 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 will travel beyond eligibility criterion and qualification prescribed under the rules. This Court has no confusion as far as mandatory statutory provision prescribing eligibility qualification under the relevant service rules are concerned. The rules regarding written examination form part of procedural aspect and would certainly be not governing eligibility criterion and qualification laid down under the statutory rules.

14. Since there is no provision for qualifying marks in the written examination, the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is to be rejected only . According to the petitioner’s calculation, he would be obtaining 100.889 marks which would be more than last cut off marks of the selected candidate being 100.703.

15. One must not get confused with the object for holding written examination as it is held only for short-listing candidates when a large number of candidates applied against limited number of vacancies. Thus, tools of procedure have been evolved only to segregate meritorious and 7 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 cannot in any manner, as said as diluting education qualification and other eligibility criterion laid down in substantive provision of the service rules. The Court is also reminded here of very object for which compassionate appointment rules are framed.

16. In recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Tinku v. State of Haryana and others 2024 SCC Online SC 3292 dealt with object of compassionate appointment and has held that these rules are exception to the general rules of the recruitment in government service and hence relaxations are obviously provided for to meet the objective for which rules have been held. Vide paragraph 14 the Court has held thus: "14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. "

17. Thus, in view of above I am of the considered view, respondents were not justified in calculating the marks by taking only 40 questions of booklet series in which all the subject of numerical aptitude to deduct them for the purpose of preparation of merit list. The ratio laid down in the judgment in Pawan Kumar Agrahar (supra) laying down also rules of calculation would be applied but taking all the 160 questions together.

18. Accordingly, respondents are directed to carry out fresh calculations by deducting three wrong questions/ answers of the booklet series minusing in total 160 questions.

19.Fresh calculation chart qua petitioner be required exercise shall be accomplished within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner finds place in the merit list matching or above the last selected candidate , he shall be offered appointment forthwith. 8 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024

20. Thus the, writ petition succeeds and is allowed as above. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Sanjeev/Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Commission, which again find support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9685 of 2007: Riyaz Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 05.1.08.".

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents since found three questions to be incorrect in the part three numerical aptitude bearing question No. 113, 112 and 116, proceeded to consider the deduction in respect of 40 questions asked in part III numerical aptitude whereas entire booklet consisted of 160 questions in four categories Hindi (part I) General Knowledge (part II), Numerical aptitude (part III) and Mental Aptitude (part IV). In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 which prescribed for only written examination and not for any particular qualifying marks in each of the papers that form part of the question series booklet during such examination conducted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed clause 1(3) of the said Government Order which is reproduced hereunder: "(iii) िलिखत परी्षा अगर द्षता मूल्यांकन में सफल अभ्यिथयों की संख्या मृतक आि्शत के रूप में इस पद पर भतर् िकए जाने वाले पदों की संख्या से अिधक है तो भतर् बोडर् ्षारा उन सभी अभ्यिथयों को एक िलिखत परी्षा करायी जाएगी। यः परी्षा वस्तुिन्ि ्ऺकार की होगी एवं इस परी्षा में कोई अहर्कारी अंक नहीं होंगे एवं इस परी्षा को के वल अभ्यिथयों का ्शे्षता कम िनधार्िरत करने के िलए आयोिजत िकया जाएगा िजसके आधार पर उनका अिन्तम रूप से चयन िकया जा सके । यह परी्षा 400 अंको की होगी िजसमें सामान्य िहन्दी/सामान्य ्ञान, संख्यात्मक एवं मानिसक योग्यता/तािकक परी्षा/बुि्धलिब्ध परी्षा िवषयों के वस्तुिन्ष ्ऺकार के ्ऺश्न होंगे। इस परी्षा को कराये जाने की ्ऺि्वया बोडर् ्षारा िनधार्िरत की जाएगी। इस परी्षा में सभी अभ्यिथयों ्षारा ्ऺाप्त अंकों के ्शे्षता ्वम के अनुसार एक सूची (Merit List) बनायो जाएगी। यिद इस ्शे्षता सूची में दो या अिधक अभ्यिथयों के अंक समान हो तो उस दशा में उनकी वरीयता िनधार्िरत करने की ्ऺि्वया िनम्न ्ऺकार होगी :- (1) अगर अभ्यथर् के पास इस पद की सेवा िनयमावली के अन्तगर्त कोई अिधमानी अहर्ता हो तो िनयमावली में अिधमानी अहर्ता के िदये गये ्वम के अनुसार। 3 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 (2) अगर उसके बाद भी ्शे्षता समान हो तो अिधक आयु के अनुसार । (3) अगर उसके बाद भी ्शे्षता समान हो तो अं्षेजी वणर्माला के नाम के कम के अनुसार ।" (emphasis added)

5. On the contrary defending the stand taken by the respondents learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Pal argued that petitioner since failed to secure marks matching with cut off of the last selected candidate in the category, could not be placed in the select list. He argued that marks were correctly awarded to him in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Aghrari (supra). Shri Pal argued that the question papers of Public Service Commission was in issue before the Division bench which consisted of 120 questions in the same series with 2.5 marks for each question and that was how the entire booklet series was considered as one question paper and accordingly deductions were made as per calculation of marks qua the correct answers by removing/ deducting three incorrect answers, whereas in the present case the question booklet series consisted four different papers of Hindi, General Knowledge, Numerical Aptitude, and Mental Ability and since the relevant rules for the post of Sub-Inspector concerned U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules 2015 rules are applicable which provide for minimum qualification marks of 50 % in each of the papers, the deduction can be made only in respect of the relevant question papers consisting on 40 questions and will not be applicable in general to the entire booklet series which consisted of 160 questions. The relevant Rule 14 (b) is reproduced hereunder: "(ग) ऑनलाइन िलिखत परी्षा के ्ऺत्येक िवषय में 50 ्ऺितशत अंक ्ऺाप्त करने में िवफल रहने वाले अभ्यथर्, भतर् के िलए पा्ऴ नहीं होंगे। उपरो्व पिरिस्थितयों के अधीन जहां कही इस िनयम में शब्द 'अंक' आया हो उसका तात्पयर् ्ऺसामान्यीकृ त अंक होगा अथार्त् ऑनलाइन िलिखत परी्षा में ्ऺितभाग करने वाले समस्त अभ्यिथयों के ्ऺत्येक िवषय के मूल ्ऺाप्तांकों का ्ऺसामान्यीकरण करने के प्ाात् िजन अभ्यिथयों के ्ऺसामान्यीकृ ता ्ऺाप्तांक ्ऺश्न-प्ऴ के ्ऺत्येक िवषय में 50 ्ऺितशत नहीं होंगे, वे अभ्यथर् चयन ्ऺि्वया के २ चरण में ्ऺितभाग करने हेतु अहर्/पा्ऴ नहीं होंगे।"

6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that 4 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 petitioner can be offered compassionate appointment to any other vacancy of a lower rank in terms of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 vide its clause 5, which is reproduced hereunder: "5-पुिलस िवभाग के चतुथर् ्शेणी पदों पर मृत पुिलस किमयों के आि्शतों की सेवायोजन की ्ऺिकया मृतक आि्शत के चतुथर् ्शेणी पद पर सेवायोजन के संबंध में उनको शैि्षक अहर्ता, न्यूनतम आयु, अन्य अहंताएं व योग्यताएं तत्समय ्ऺचिलत उ्तर ्ऺदेश पुिलस समूह "च" कमर्चारी सेवा िनयमावली में िदए गए ्ऺावधानों के अनुसार होगी । जनपदीय पुिलस के चतुथर् ्शेणी के पदों पर मृतक आि्शत के सेवायोजन को कायर्वाही संबंिधत जनपद के विर्ष पुिलस अधी्षक/पुिलस अधी्षक ्षारा की जाएगी । यिद जनपद में िरि्वयां उपलब्ध न हो तो आि्शतों के सेवा योजन का ्ऺस्ताव संबंिधत जोनल पुिलस महािनरी्षक को भेजा जाएगा जो उसका समायोजन जोन के िकसी अन्य जनपद में वतर्मान िरि्वयों के सापे्ष कराएं गे। इसी ्ऺकार पुिलस िवभाग की िविभन्न इकाईयों जैसे-पीएसी/सीबीसीआईडी, रेिडयो मुख्यालय, अिभसूचना मुख्यालय, रेलवे इत्यािद ्षारा चतुथर् ्शेणी पदों पर मृतक आि्शतों के सेवायोजन की कायर्वाही उनके स्तर से ही की जाएगी। यिद िकसी कायार्लय में चतुथर् ्शेणी की िरि्वयां उपलब्ध न हो तो इसका ्ऺस्ताव इकाई के मुख्यालय को भेजा जाएगा जो अपने स्तर से समायोजन का ्ऺयास करेंगे। िकन्तु अगर जोन स्तर पर या इकाई मुख्यालय स्तर पर िरि्वयों के सापे्ष िरि्व उपलब्ध न हो एवं भतर् िकया जाना सम्भव न हो तो उसका ्ऺस्ताव पुिलस मुख्यालय को भेजा जाएगा जहां पर इसे िरि्वयों का आंकलन कर िकसी जनपद या इकाई में भतर् हेतु भेजा जाएगा। िरि्वयों की गणना करते समय आगामी सम्भािवत िरि्वयों को नहीं जोड़ा जाएगा बिल्क संबंिधत कायार्लय में वतर्मान में िर्वयों के सापे्ष सेवायोजन की कायर्वाही की जाएगी ।"

7. Replying the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel learned counsel for petitioner sought to rely upon another judgment of the Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of this Court in the matter of Matin Rao v. State of U.P. and others Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38524 of 2010 decided on 23.12.2014 which has been brought on record by means of rejoinder affidavit. However, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2015 in which the Single Bench judgment has been set aside.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that even though the Government Order dated

24.11.2015 provides for the procedure for the purposes of method and manner in which the selection is to be held by holding written examination and preparation of select list, but vide clause 1 of the said Government Order it is provided that recruitment shall be held in respect of the post for which provision has been given for direct recruitment 5 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 under the relevant recruitment rules. Clause 3 provides for procedure.

9. Thus, having examined Clause 1 (I)(iii) of the Government Order dated

24.11.2015 in no manner of doubt, it can be said that minimum 50 per cent qualifying marks in each of the paper as is argued to be mandatory, is contemplated for the purposes of preparation of merit list in the written examination conducted for the selection on the post of Sub Inspector is not applicable in compassionate appointment cases and hence, for computation of marks on principles laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrahari (supra), course would be to take all the 160 questions together, to minus three questions of which incorrect answers were prescribed in the model answer key. It is this procedure which would be compatible to compassionate appointment rules to find out actual marks obtained by each such candidates who participated the written examination.

10. There is no quarrel between the parties as to the principle which has been evolved in the judgment of Pawan Kumar Agrahari (supra) for its application in general to the competitive examination for the purposes of holding selection of candidates, whether in general category or compassionate category. Line of distinction that was sought to be drawn only for the reason that four different subject papers were there in the entire booklet series which consisted 160 questions, would be indicative of a fact that these examinations are distinguishable from the examinations conducted by Public Service Commission.

11. While dealing with relevant provision of Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 on the face of it appears to be quite impressive but looking to the procedure prescribed in the same Government Order vide Clause 1(1)(iii) as already reproduced have been in this judgment, when it prescribed that there should be no qualifying marks in the written examination, then these provisions should have been taken to have further 6 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 qualified conditions with qualification of eligibility criterion laid down in Clause 2.

12. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the last cut off marks of the selected candidate. One of the argument that was advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that rules of eligibility and qualification even for the purpose of compassionate appointment since would be governed by relevant statutory service rules as per Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015, the written examination and obtaining qualifying marks thereof should be also taken as one of the eligibility criterion for the purpose of success in the written examination to find place in the selected list.

13. On compassionate appointment, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not demonstrate from the rules that eligibility criterion and the qualification as prescribed under Clause-2 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2015 will travel beyond eligibility criterion and qualification prescribed under the rules. This Court has no confusion as far as mandatory statutory provision prescribing eligibility qualification under the relevant service rules are concerned. The rules regarding written examination form part of procedural aspect and would certainly be not governing eligibility criterion and qualification laid down under the statutory rules.

14. Since there is no provision for qualifying marks in the written examination, the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is to be rejected only . According to the petitioner’s calculation, he would be obtaining 100.889 marks which would be more than last cut off marks of the selected candidate being 100.703.

15. One must not get confused with the object for holding written examination as it is held only for short-listing candidates when a large number of candidates applied against limited number of vacancies. Thus, tools of procedure have been evolved only to segregate meritorious and 7 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024 cannot in any manner, as said as diluting education qualification and other eligibility criterion laid down in substantive provision of the service rules. The Court is also reminded here of very object for which compassionate appointment rules are framed.

16. In recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Tinku v. State of Haryana and others 2024 SCC Online SC 3292 dealt with object of compassionate appointment and has held that these rules are exception to the general rules of the recruitment in government service and hence relaxations are obviously provided for to meet the objective for which rules have been held. Vide paragraph 14 the Court has held thus: "14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. "

17. Thus, in view of above I am of the considered view, respondents were not justified in calculating the marks by taking only 40 questions of booklet series in which all the subject of numerical aptitude to deduct them for the purpose of preparation of merit list. The ratio laid down in the judgment in Pawan Kumar Agrahar (supra) laying down also rules of calculation would be applied but taking all the 160 questions together.

18. Accordingly, respondents are directed to carry out fresh calculations by deducting three wrong questions/ answers of the booklet series minusing in total 160 questions.

19.Fresh calculation chart qua petitioner be required exercise shall be accomplished within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner finds place in the merit list matching or above the last selected candidate , he shall be offered appointment forthwith. 8 WRIA No. 11184 of 2024

20. Thus the, writ petition succeeds and is allowed as above. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Sanjeev/Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad