The issue is covered by Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646.
Court held, scheme and rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate mandate of Article 14; once Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act regards a child, born from a marriage entered into while earlier marriage is subsisting, to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking benefit of compassionate appointment.
Compassionate appointments are a well-recognized exception to general rule, if they are carved out in interest of justice to meet public policy considerations. A policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with mandate of Articles 14 and 16. A policy for compassionate appointment, which has force of law, must not discriminate on any grounds mentioned in Article 16(2).
– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18571 of 2018].