A compassionate appointment case considered only once cannot be closed as “deemed rejected” under the three-consideration rule.

Rajkumar’s father, a Sorting Assistant in the Department of Posts, died in service on 17 December 2012.

Rajkumar applied for compassionate appointment, and his candidature was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) in April 2014. He received 51 merit points; the parties’ accounts differ on the last selected candidate’s score—63 in the respondents’ case and 53 in the initial factual summary. His application was not recommended.

In an order dated 2 June 2025, the respondents classified his case as “Deemed Rejected-I” under the Directorate’s letter dated 20 July 2023 and stated that it could not be reconsidered.

Rajkumar challenged that closure, arguing that his candidature had been considered only once and that his family remained in financial hardship.

1. Whether the respondents could close Rajkumar’s compassionate-appointment candidature as “Deemed Rejected-I” after it had been considered only once.

2. Whether Rajkumar’s candidature should be reconsidered by reference to the family’s present financial circumstances and the applicable compassionate-appointment conditions.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

The Department of Posts’ letter dated 20 July 2023, clarifying the Revised Relative Merit Points System (RMPS-2022), provides for rejection at the third consideration where a case is not recommended; it also directs consideration of certain past cases until they have been considered three times, subject to the stated categories and exceptions.

The DoPT Office Memorandum dated 26 July 2012 withdrew the earlier three-year time limit for compassionate-appointment cases and directed that such cases be governed by the 9 October 1998 instructions, with the appointing authority responsible for examining the family’s penurious condition.

The judgment also reproduces the Supreme Court’s observation in Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu that compassionate appointment must address financial distress and cannot be granted merely because the claimant is a dependent.

The Tribunal found that Rajkumar’s candidature had been considered only once, in 2014, and that it was later closed by applying the Directorate’s 2023 letter.

It reasoned that the earlier time limit for compassionate-appointment cases had been withdrawn and that the applicant had not exhausted three considerations.

On that basis, it held that the “Deemed Rejected” classification could not permanently bar reconsideration. The Tribunal did not direct appointment; instead, it left the merits to the respondents, requiring them to assess the family’s current financial condition and whether the other prescribed conditions were satisfied.

It directed the respondents to place and consider his case at the next CRC meeting, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, after assessing the family’s present penurious circumstances and the other eligibility conditions. The Original Application was disposed of without an order as to costs.