“No Mandamus Without a Policy” – Judicial Limits on Up-grading Special-Category Appointments under Article 226
Commentary on Neeraj Sharma v. State of Punjab & Others (2025 PHHC 72166)

1. Introduction

Neeraj Sharma, the son of an ex-spy who spent six years as a prisoner in Pakistan, approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 seeking to set aside five administrative orders that had successively rejected his claim to be appointed as a Sub-Inspector (or at least an Assistant Sub-Inspector) in the Punjab Police. Although he held a B.Sc. (Medical) and a Diploma in Pharmacy, the State had, on compassionate grounds, already appointed him as a Constable without making him compete through the regular recruitment route. Sharma argued that several similarly-situated applicants had been given higher (Class-B) posts and claimed a right to parity.
The single question before Justice Jagmohan Bansal was: “Can the High Court compel the State to upgrade an exceptional/compassionate appointment to a higher rank in the absence of a governing policy?”

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that in the absence of any express or implied State policy permitting such higher-rank appointments, the Court could not direct the administration to do so.
• The petitioner had already accepted and joined the post of Constable; his later representations did not create a fresh enforceable right.
• Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to craft service benefits that the executive itself has never contemplated.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Implied Authorities

Although the judgment itself is brief and does not cite reported precedents by name, its reasoning is anchored in a long line of Supreme Court authorities. Below are the key decisions that inevitably girded the Court’s conclusion:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 — fixed the proposition that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of open, merit-based recruitment and must strictly flow from a scheme or policy.
2. Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646 — reiterated that courts cannot expand the scope of compassionate schemes through judicial fiat.
3. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 — refused elevation of an appointee from Class-IV to Class-III in the absence of a policy, emphasising that “parity cannot be claimed in vacuum.”
4. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 — though dealing with irregular appointments, laid down the principle that public employment is a matter of constitutional as well as statutory prescription and cannot be individualised.
5. K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 — stressed that selection criteria can be changed only by the rule-making authority, not by courts.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted by the Court

1. Source of Right – The Court first located where the petitioner’s claimed right could potentially reside: a statute, service rules, a Government notification, or an executive policy. Finding none, it concluded the right was non-existent.
2. Acceptance of Benefit – Sharma had already accepted the post of Constable. The principle of estoppel (one cannot approbate and reprobate) renders subsequent claims for higher rank unsustainable without new foundational facts.
3. Limits of Article 226 Mandamus – A writ of mandamus lies to enforce an existing legal duty, not to create one. Without a policy, there is no duty on the State to grant the requested rank; therefore, no mandamus can issue.
4. Parity Argument Rejected – “Similarly situated” is meaningful only where the comparators derive their benefit from an existing legal instrument. Isolated executive indulgences cannot ripen into enforceable precedent for others.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

• Re-affirmation of Executive Primacy: The judgment fortifies the principle that framing or amending compassionate/special-category appointment schemes is the executive’s domain, not the judiciary’s.
• Deterrence to “Up-gradation” Litigation: Individuals who accept lower-rank posts offered under discretion are put on notice that subsequent judicial escalation is unlikely without a textual basis.
• Administrative Clarity: States may now issue more detailed guidelines to avoid ad-hoc higher-rank grants that could otherwise spawn parity claims.
• Alignment with National Jurisprudence: The ruling harmonises with Supreme Court dicta on the limited ambit of compassionate appointments, thereby contributing to doctrinal uniformity across High Courts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Compassionate / Special-Category Appointment

A job offered by the State outside normal competitive exams, usually to dependents of deceased employees or persons with special public-service background, strictly governed by a written policy.

Mandamus

A writ directing a public authority to discharge a legal duty already cast upon it. Courts cannot create the duty; they can only compel its performance.

Pari Materia / Parity Principle

Litigants often claim that because X received a benefit, Y must too. Courts allow this only if X received the benefit under a valid, existing rule that equally applies to Y.

Estoppel by Conduct

A party who knowingly accepts a benefit cannot later disclaim the terms attached to that benefit.

5. Conclusion

Neeraj Sharma v. State of Punjab is a concise yet potent restatement of the boundaries of judicial review in public employment. Unless the State promulgates a clear policy or rule, the High Court will neither manufacture a right to a higher post nor transform compassionate or special-category appointments into a vehicle for accelerated advancement. The decision underscores the constitutional separation between rule-making (executive/legislature) and rule-enforcing (judiciary), promoting predictability in service jurisprudence and dissuading speculative Article 226 petitions seeking “up-gradations by parity.”