33. In State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, reported in MANU/SC/0742/2012 : (2012) 9 SCC 545, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the scheme, in the matters of compassionate appointment, has made the following observations:

“11. The courts and tribunals do not have the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention thereof. In State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir MANU/SC/0397/1998 : (1998) 6 SCC 165, this Court while dealing with a similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31)

“31…. The courts as also the tribunals have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution.

12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”. (Vide State of J & K v. Shiv Ram Sharma MANU/SC/0216/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 653 and Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0694/2000 : (2000) 8 SCC 633.)”