'Faced Many Hurdles In Life': Kerala High Court Orders Compassionate Appointment Despite Criminal Antecedents, Applies 'Nexus Test'

The Kerala High Court has set aside an order rejecting a man's appointment under the compassionate employment scheme due to his past involvement in criminal cases, holding that there exists no relevant connection between the alleged offence and the nature of the post in question.

A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John was hearing a petition filed by Jijin R., whose mother was a part-time sweeper in the Police Department and died in service in 2017. Jijin, belonging to the Ezhava community, was offered a post as Police Constable (Driver) under the compassionate scheme.

However, the government rejected his appointment citing his involvement in six criminal cases between 2012 and 2019, including minor offences like consuming alcohol in public, making gestures at women, trespass, assault, and a matrimonial dispute that was later settled. The authorities also said he failed to disclose this in his verification form.

Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024) and other cases, the Bench adopted what it called the 'nexus test': whether there is any real link between the past offences and the post.

"We are not approaching this case through the lens of either the honourable acquittal test or the proximate test. Instead, we adopt a distinct line of analysis grounded in the nexus test," it said.

Under the nexus test, the Court explained, the focus of inquiry is to determine whether there exists a relevant connection between the alleged offence, the imputation upon the individual's character, and the nature of the post in question.

"The primary consideration is whether the position sought requires a high degree of public trust or involves the exercise of discretionary authority,” the Court said.

The second consideration, the court said, is whether, given the individual's social and economic background, such a person ought to be denied access to public employment of that nature. This necessitates a deeper engagement with the structural disparities rooted in social and economic backwardness, which in turn influence the development and perception of individual behaviour and character.

Referring to Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., the Bench held that minor lapses should not permanently shut the door for reform.

“We must interpret and apply the law beyond its literal words and read it through the lens of justice. Every law is made with an aim to create a just society. A law that loses its connection to justice becomes hollow and would be regarded as a technical tool,” the judgment reminded.

In this case, the Court said Jijin had "faced many hurdles in life". He did not have access to education; he suffered a day's imprisonment and fine in a case; in three cases, he was acquitted. The last case involved a matrimonial dispute and ended in a compromise, it noted.

The Court also found that the non-disclosure in the verification form was not material enough to deny him the job, especially since the relevant question was only in English and could have confused someone with his education level.

Thus setting aside the Tribunal's order, the Court directed the State to appoint Jijin within four weeks.

Case Title: Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case No: OP(KAT) No. 72 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 413

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Shri Kaleeswaram Raj, Kum. Thulasi K. Raj, Smt. Chinnu Maria Antony, Smt. Aparna Narayan Menon

Counsel for State: Senior Government Pleader B. Unnikrishna Kaimal

Click Here To Read/Download Order