Waseem Hussain Rather vs TELECOMMUNICATION

ITEM 11 1 OA 30 OF 2024

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SRINAGAR BENCH, SRINAGAR
O.A. 30/2024
Heard and Reserved on: 17.07.2026
Pronouncement of Order on: 27.08.2026
C O R A M
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE,MEMBER(JUDL.)

Waseem Hussain Rather Aged 31 years.
S/o Lt. Ghulam Hassan Rather
R/o Wagam Chadoora, Budgam.
PIN-190002.
…… Applicant
By Advocate :
Mr. Kaiser Ali
VERSUS
1.Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India
through its Chief Executive Officer, New Delhi. 110011.
2. DG Air Parliament Street, New Delhi, 110011.
3.Chief Engineer, Air CCW, New Delhi 110011.
4. Executive Engineer. AIR CCW, Panjithrithi Jammu.
180081.
…. Respondents
By Advocate :-
Mr. S N Ratanpuri

O R D E R (FINAL)
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. The applicant has filed the present Original Application
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 2 OA 30 OF 2024

1985, calling in question the speaking order dated
24.11.2022 issued by the respondents, whereby his claim
for appointment on compassionate grounds has been
rejected. The applicant seeks, inter alia, quashing of the
said order and a direction to the respondents to reconsider
and extend to him the benefit of compassionate
appointment, including the benefit of relaxation, as was
allegedly extended in the case of Ms. Pooja.
02. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the
controversy are that the father of the applicant, namely,
Late Ghulam Hassan Rather, was serving as a Beldar in
the Civil Construction Wing of All India Radio, Srinagar.
He died in a tragic accident on 07.09.2012 while in
service. Soon thereafter, the applicant's mother submitted
an application seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds for one of her sons, proposing the applicant for
such appointment. The application was forwarded by the
concerned authorities for consideration. The record also
discloses subsequent representations and communications
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 3 OA 30 OF 2024

concerning the applicant's claim.
03. The applicant's case remained under consideration at
different stages. The record reveals that his claim was
considered by the Screening Committee under the
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by Prasar
Bharati for compassionate appointments. In the speaking
order dated 03.07.2017, the respondents recorded that the
applicant had secured 60 points out of the prescribed
grading, whereas the candidates securing the highest
points for the relevant vacancies had secured 75 and 79
points. The applicant was, accordingly, not recommended.
The said order also indicated that unsuccessful candidates
could be considered in subsequent Screening Committee
meetings upon submission of updated
information/documents.
04. The applicant thereafter approached the Hon'ble High
Court in SWP No. 251/2018. The said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2018. While disposing
of the matter, the Hon'ble High Court noticed the
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 4 OA 30 OF 2024

judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed in SWP No.
1108/2015, concerning Ms. Pooja, and directed the
respondents to consider the applicant's claim in the light
of the said judgment, provided the claim of the applicant
was squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. The
decision was directed to be taken within one month from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
05. The aforesaid direction was followed by contempt
proceedings initiated by the applicant in CPSW No.
200/2018. During the pendency of the contempt
proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated
24.09.2021, granted the respondents a further opportunity
to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment dated
15.09.2015 passed in SWP No. 1108/2015 and to pass an
appropriate order.
06. Pursuant thereto, the respondents issued a speaking order
dated 20.12.2021. The said order referred to the
consideration of the claim of Ms. Pooja and also stated
that the applicant's case had been considered for different
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 5 OA 30 OF 2024

years under the applicable SOP. The record further shows
that the applicant's case continued to be considered in
subsequent Screening Committee proceedings.
07. Eventually, the respondents issued the impugned speaking
order dated 24.11.2022. The said order records that, in
terms of the applicable rules and the instructions of the
DoP&T, 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies in Group
'C' posts were earmarked for compassionate appointment.
It further records that the Screening Committee assessed
the cases on the basis of the grading system contained in
the SOP, taking into account factors such as family
pension, movable and immovable property, length of
service, post-retirement benefits, monthly income, minor
children, dependents and unmarried daughters.
08.
The impugned order further records that the Screening
Committee met on 02.06.2022 to consider applications for
the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Three posts were
stated to be earmarked for compassionate appointment for
the respective years. The Committee recommended
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 6 OA 30 OF 2024

candidates securing 77 points for the year 2018 and 71
points each for the years 2020 and 2021. In respect of the
applicant, it was recorded that he had secured 58 points
and, therefore, could not be selected along with the other
applicants. The applicant was advised that he could
submit updated information/documents for consideration
in a subsequent Screening Committee meeting.
09. It is this order dated 24.11.2022 which is under challenge
before me.
10.
Learned counsel for the applicant has primarily contended
that the impugned order does not demonstrate compliance
with the specific directions issued by the Hon'ble High
Court in SWP No. 251/2018 and subsequently in the
contempt proceedings, requiring reconsideration of the
applicant's claim in the light of the judgment dated
15.09.2015 passed in SWP No. 1108/2015. It is submitted
that the respondents have merely applied the grading
mechanism under the SOP and have not examined the
applicant's claim in the context of the aforesaid judgment
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 7 OA 30 OF 2024

or the treatment allegedly extended to Ms. Pooja.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended
that the applicant has been pursuing his claim
continuously since the death of his father and that the
prolonged period consumed in the consideration of his
claim and in the ensuing judicial proceedings cannot, by
itself, be attributed to any inaction on his part. It is
submitted that the very object of compassionate
appointment is to provide relief to the family of a
deceased employee facing financial hardship and that the
respondents, instead of considering the applicant's claim
in a meaningful and timely manner, have kept the matter
pending for several years. Reliance has been placed, inter
alia, upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar , (2015) 7 SCC 412
and Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd .,
(2000) 6 SCC 493. Learned counsel has also relied upon
State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar , (2010) 11 SCC 661
and N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka , (2020) 7 SCC
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 8 OA 30 OF 2024

617, in support of the submission that the claim for
compassionate appointment is required to be considered in
accordance with the governing scheme.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted
that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and
discriminatorily in the matter of relaxation of the
applicable rules. According to the applicant, relaxation
was extended in favour of Ms. Pooja, despite her allegedly
having lower merit, whereas the applicant, who claims to
have been the only eligible candidate and to have
possessed higher merit at the relevant point of time, was
not accorded similar consideration. It is contended that
such selective exercise of the power of relaxation, if
established from the record, would offend the mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned
counsel has also submitted that, despite the specific
direction of this Tribunal during the hearing, the
respondents have not produced the complete record
relating to the selection and appointment of Ms. Pooja,
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 9 OA 30 OF 2024

including the original selection record, appointment file,
proceedings of the Selection Committee, relevant
guidelines and orders, if any, granting relaxation, which,
according to the applicant, is material for determining his
plea of parity.
13. On the other hand , learned counsel for the respondents
has submitted that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the normal rule of recruitment and that no
candidate possesses a vested or indefeasible right to such
appointment. It is submitted that the respondents have
formulated an objective SOP containing a grading
mechanism and that the applicant was considered in
accordance with the said mechanism. According to the
respondents, the applicant secured only 58 points, whereas
the candidates recommended for appointment had secured
higher points. The respondents have accordingly defended
the impugned order. The SOP placed on record
specifically provides for assessment on several parameters
and factors, including family pension, terminal benefits,
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 10 OA 30 OF 2024

income, property, dependents and other relevant factors
and for allocation of points on the basis of such factors.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
carefully perused the pleadings, written submissions, the
documents placed on record and the previous orders
passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the earlier rounds of
litigation.
15. Before examining the rival submissions, it is necessary to
notice the nature and scope of compassionate
appointment. It is now well settled that compassionate
appointment is an exception to the normal rule of
recruitment and is intended to provide relief to a family
which is left in financial distress on account of the death
or medical incapacitation of the breadwinner. At the same
time, such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of
right and the claim has necessarily to be examined within
the framework of the applicable scheme or policy.
16. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das
& Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 11 OA 30 OF 2024

held that compassionate appointment is a concession and
not a vested right. It was observed that such appointment
must strictly conform to the scheme governing the field
and that the criteria laid down in the Rules must be
satisfied by every aspirant seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds.
17. In MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13
SCC 583 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly
in accordance with the scheme governing the field and
that no aspirant can claim such appointment as a matter of
right under a scheme which is not applicable to the claim.
18. The Standard Operating Procedure relied upon by the
respondents itself proceeds on the premise that the object
of compassionate appointment is to provide relief to the
dependent family member of an employee who dies in
harness, leaving the family in penury. The SOP seeks to
introduce objectivity and transparency through a system
of allocation of points based upon various attributes of the
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 12 OA 30 OF 2024

family.
19. Thus, there is no dispute with the proposition that the
respondents are not only entitled, but are, in fact, required,
to assess the financial condition of the family in
accordance with the applicable SOP. The mere fact that
the applicant has been pursuing his claim for several years
cannot, by itself, create an indefeasible right to
appointment.
20. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara
Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K ., 2025 INSC 184, also
reiterates that compassionate appointment is intended to
address the immediate financial crisis arising from the
death of the breadwinner and that the governing scheme
and the eligibility requirements thereunder cannot be
bypassed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed
that relief cannot be denied solely on account of the time
consumed in prosecuting proceedings before judicial or
quasi-judicial forums, where such delay is not attributable
to the claimant. At the same time, the Court reiterated that
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 13 OA 30 OF 2024

the claim must be examined within the framework of the
applicable scheme and that the relevant requirements of
eligibility and suitability cannot be dispensed with.
21. The above principles, however, do not completely answer
the controversy before me. The principal question in the
present matter is not whether the applicant has an
automatic right to compassionate appointment. The
question is whether the respondents, while passing the
impugned order, properly complied with the specific
judicial directions governing consideration of his claim.
22. In this regard, the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed by
the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1108/2015 assumes
considerable significance. In that matter, concerning Ms.
Pooja, the Hon'ble High Court directed consideration of
the claim for compassionate appointment upon submission
of the requisite application and documents, including
consideration of relaxation of age in accordance with the
applicable rules, and directed that the matter be
considered at the earliest.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 14 OA 30 OF 2024

23. The subsequent order dated 15.02.2018 passed in SWP
No. 251/2018 was not an independent or general direction
to consider the applicant's case in the ordinary course. The
direction was specifically to consider the claim of the
applicant in the light of the judgment dated 15.09.2015
passed in SWP No. 1108/2015, provided the applicant's
claim was squarely covered by the said judgment.
24. The significance of this direction becomes even more
apparent from the subsequent contempt proceedings. Vide
order dated 24.09.2021, the Hon'ble High Court again
directed the respondents to reconsider the matter in the
light of the judgment dated 15.09.2015 and pass an
appropriate order. Thus, the respondents were not merely
required to undertake another mechanical exercise of
assigning points; they were required to demonstrate that
the applicant's case had been examined in the context of
the judicial directions which had specifically governed the
subsequent consideration.
25. I have carefully gone through the impugned speaking
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 15 OA 30 OF 2024

order dated 24.11.2022. The order sets out the general
principles of the compassionate appointment scheme and
records the points secured by the candidates considered
for the relevant years. It also records that the applicant
secured 58 points and, on that basis, was not
recommended.
26. However, the impugned order does not demonstrate that
the respondents examined the specific effect of the
judgment dated 15.09.2015 in SWP No. 1108/2015, the
subsequent order dated 15.02.2018 in SWP No. 251/2018,
or the direction dated 24.09.2021 issued in the contempt
proceedings. More importantly, the order does not
disclose any consideration of whether the applicant's case
was, in fact, squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment
and, if not, for what reasons.
27. The respondents cannot be faulted merely because they
applied the grading system under the SOP. The difficulty
lies in the fact that the impugned order does not show that
the grading exercise was undertaken after first satisfying
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 16 OA 30 OF 2024

the specific mandate of the judicial orders governing the
applicant's case.
28. The distinction is important. A direction to reconsider a
claim in the light of an earlier judgment does not
necessarily mean that the claimant must be appointed. It
does, however, require the competent authority to
examine the claim in the factual and legal context
contemplated by that judgment and to record reasons for
either extending or declining the benefit flowing
therefrom.
29. The order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court in CPSW No. 200/2018 does not alter this position.
The contempt petition was dismissed because the
respondents had placed the speaking order dated
24.11.2022 on record and, on that basis, the Court found
no occasion to continue contempt proceedings. At the
same time, the petitioner was expressly left at liberty to
challenge the consideration/speaking order in accordance
with law.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 17 OA 30 OF 2024

30. Consequently, the dismissal of the contempt petition
cannot be construed as an adjudication by the Hon'ble
High Court upon the correctness of the reasoning
contained in the speaking order dated 24.11.2022. The
present Original Application is precisely the remedy
which the applicant was left free to pursue.
31. I am also conscious that the applicant has relied upon the
case of Ms. Pooja and has alleged that the respondents
extended relaxation and other benefit to her. The
respondents, on the other hand, have relied upon the
grading mechanism and have not accepted that the
applicant is entitled to the same treatment. The applicant
has further asserted that, despite the specific direction
issued by this Tribunal during the hearing to place on
record the complete record relating to the appointment of
Ms. Pooja, the respondents have not produced the original
selection record, appointment file, proceedings of the
Selection Committee, or the order(s), if any, relating to
grant of relaxation. In the circumstances, the material
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 18 OA 30 OF 2024

presently available before me does not enable me to
conclusively determine the precise circumstances in which
Ms. Pooja came to be appointed, including the nature and
extent of any relaxation granted to her.
32.
It would therefore be inappropriate for this Tribunal to
straightaway hold that the applicant is identically situated
to Ms. Pooja or to direct his appointment solely on that
basis. The decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar
G.K ., ( supra ), also underscores that the claim for
compassionate appointment has to be considered within
the framework of the governing scheme and that the
prescribed requirements cannot be bypassed.
33. Nevertheless, the applicant's plea regarding parity with
Ms. Pooja requires specific examination by the competent
authority. If the applicant's case is found to be factually
and legally distinguishable, the competent authority must
record reasons for such distinction. Conversely, if the
record establishes that relaxation or any other benefit was
extended to a similarly situated candidate under the same
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 19 OA 30 OF 2024

governing scheme, the respondents must examine whether
the same treatment can legally be extended to the
applicant.
34. I also find substance in the applicant's contention that the
prolonged period consumed in litigation cannot, by itself,
be treated as a circumstance demonstrating that the need
underlying his claim for compassionate appointment had
ceased to exist, without examining the reasons for the
passage of time. The record shows that the applicant has
been pursuing his claim before the authorities and
thereafter before the Hon'ble High Court and this
Tribunal. As noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K ., ( supra ) relief may
not be denied solely on account of the time consumed in
bona fide prosecution of judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings where such delay is not attributable to the
claimant.
35. At the same time, this observation does not mean that the
applicant must necessarily be appointed merely because
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 20 OA 30 OF 2024

considerable time has elapsed. The competent authority
must assess the claim in accordance with the applicable
scheme, including the financial circumstances and other
prescribed parameters, while also taking into account, in
accordance with law, the circumstances in which the
period of litigation came to be consumed and whether any
part thereof is attributable to the applicant.
36. On an overall consideration of the matter, I am of the view
that the impugned speaking order dated 24.11.2022 cannot
be sustained in its present form. The order does not
sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the specific
mandate arising from the judgment dated 15.09.2015 in
SWP No. 1108/2015 and the subsequent judicial
directions requiring reconsideration of the applicant's
claim in its light. The order also does not disclose any
meaningful consideration of the applicant's specific plea
regarding parity with Ms. Pooja, including the alleged
relaxation extended to her. The mere recording of the
points obtained by the applicant does not, in the facts of
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 21 OA 30 OF 2024

the present case, constitute adequate consideration of the
specific issues which had arisen pursuant to the earlier
judicial orders.
37. I, therefore, refrain from expressing any final opinion on
the applicant's entitlement to compassionate appointment,
the applicability of any age relaxation, his parity with Ms.
Pooja, the correctness of the points awarded to him, or the
ultimate suitability of the applicant for appointment.
Those matters are required to be considered by the
competent authority in the first instance in accordance
with the applicable policy/SOP and the judicial directions
already issued.
38. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed to the
following limited extent:
(i) The speaking order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the
respondents in respect of the applicant's claim for
compassionate appointment is quashed and set aside .
(ii) The respondents, particularly the competent authority,
shall reconsider the applicant's claim for
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 22 OA 30 OF 2024

compassionate appointment afresh , in accordance with
the applicable scheme/SOP and the judicial directions
contained in the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed in
SWP No. 1108/2015, the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in
SWP No. 251/2018 and the subsequent orders passed in
the contempt proceedings.
(iii) While undertaking such reconsideration, the
competent authority shall specifically examine the
applicant's contention regarding the treatment
extended to Ms. Pooja, including the question of
relaxation, if any, and shall examine the relevant record
relating to her selection and appointment, including the
applicable guidelines, Selection Committee proceedings
and order(s), if any, granting relaxation, and shall record
reasons if the applicant's case is found to be
distinguishable.
( iv ) The competent authority shall also take into account
the fact that the applicant has continuously pursued his
claim before the competent authorities and judicial
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 23 OA 30 OF 2024

forums, and the period consumed in such proceedings
shall not, without examining the circumstances in which
such period was consumed, be mechanically treated as
delay attributable to the applicant.
( v ) Thereafter, the competent authority shall undertake the
requisite assessment in accordance with the governing
SOP , including the prescribed financial and other
parameters, and shall pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking
order dealing with all the material contentions of the
applicant.
( vi ) The above exercise shall be completed within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
39. It is made clear that the present order does not direct
appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds.
The question of his ultimate entitlement, eligibility,
suitability and any relaxation permissible under the
applicable scheme is left open for consideration by the
competent authority in accordance with law.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 11 24 OA 30 OF 2024

40. It is further clarified that no opinion is expressed on the
merits of the applicant's claim beyond the infirmity
noticed in the impugned speaking order. All other
contentions, including those relating to the applicable
SOP, grading/points, alleged parity with Ms. Pooja and
the permissible extent of relaxation, are left open.
41. The Original Application stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
42. Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room
after due compliance.


(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE)
Member(Judl.)


27-08-2026
DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, E=
[email protected]
Devendra
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.01 11:45:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi