A decade-long delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s father, a CRPF constable, died in harness on 3 March 2012.

The petitioner’s mother sought compassionate appointment for him in August 2012 and was informed that she could apply after he attained majority.

The petitioner applied on 24 April 2023, approximately eleven years after his father’s death.

He was found medically unfit because he was 13 kg overweight, and his claim was rejected by memo dated 16 April 2024.

He challenged that rejection, arguing, among other things, that physical standards should not apply to compassionate appointments.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment when he first applied approximately eleven years after his father’s death, notwithstanding his minority at the time of the initial representation and the respondents’ communication that an application could be made after he attained majority.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application on medical-fitness grounds, including his being 13 kg overweight, warranted judicial relief.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment, intended to provide immediate assistance to a deceased employee’s family facing financial crisis; it is not an alternative mode of employment or a vested right.

It cannot ordinarily be claimed after a reasonable period, once the immediate crisis has passed (*Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana*, (1994) 4 SCC 138, quoted at para. 9, pp. 5–6).

A vacancy cannot generally be reserved until a minor dependent attains majority, absent a specific provision, because the purpose is immediate relief (*Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar*, (2000) 7 SCC 192, quoted at para. 10, pp. 6–7).

The objective is to provide solace to the family at the time of the employee’s death; compassionate appointment is not an alternative to normal recruitment (*Indian Bank v. Promila*, (2020) 2 SCC 729, quoted at para. 11, pp. 7–8).

The Court noted that there was no provision in the rules to the contrary.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the petitioner’s first application in April 2023—about eleven years after his father’s death—could not serve the purpose of relieving the family’s immediate financial crisis.

The Court considered that the petitioner had been able to sustain himself during that period and concluded that the delay defeated the basis for compassionate appointment, notwithstanding the earlier communication concerning his minority.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s application had been considered and that he was found medically unfit because he was 13 kg overweight; it did not separately decide the petitioner’s argument about the applicability of physical standards.

It dismissed the writ application and granted no relief.