A subsequent representation cannot revive a compassionate-appointment claim barred by res judicata.

The applicant’s father, a Postman in the Postal Department, died in a road accident on 29.01.2012 along with the applicant’s mother. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment in February–March 2012 and submitted the documents sought by the department. His claim was initially rejected on the ground that, being a married son, he was not eligible under the FAQ dated 30.05.2013. During the pendency of the applicant’s earlier O.A. No. 826 of 2014, revised guidelines made a married son eligible for consideration. The respondents consequently reconsidered his candidature in meetings held on 27–28.09.2018, but rejected it on the ground that he had secured only 37 merit points, as against 52 points secured by the last selected candidate; the decision was communicated on 23/25.10.2018

The applicant did not challenge the 2018 rejection in O.A. No. 826 of 2014, which was dismissed on 22.04.2024 because his candidature had already been reconsidered and the subsequent rejection had not been challenged. The Allahabad High Court affirmed that view and dismissed Writ-A No. 2165 of 2025 on 11.03.2025. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 05.11.2024 seeking reconsideration, which was rejected on 11.12.2024 on the same merit-points ground. He then filed the present O.A. challenging the 2018 and 2024 orders and seeking reconsideration under the applicable compassionate-appointment policy

1. Whether the applicant could challenge the order dated 13.10.2018, communicated on 23/25.10.2018, after failing to challenge it during the pendency of O.A. No. 826 of 2014 and after dismissal of that O.A. and the subsequent writ petition?

2. Whether the representation dated 05.11.2024 and its rejection dated 11.12.2024 created a fresh cause of action enabling the applicant to reopen his claim for compassionate appointment?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction for reconsideration of his compassionate-appointment claim despite the respondents’ earlier consideration and rejection of his candidature on the ground of lesser merit points?

The Tribunal applied the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, holding that a litigant cannot split claims arising from the same cause of action or revive a concluded dispute through a subsequent representation.

It relied on the binding effect of the earlier decision in O.A. No. 826 of 2014, as affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 2165 of 2025.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the principle that compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable departmental scheme and that eligibility does not confer an automatic right to appointment; the candidature remains subject to consideration under the prescribed merit criteria.

The earlier proceedings had been instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had full knowledge of the respondents’ decision dated 13.10.2018, communicated in October 2018, rejecting his candidature on the basis of lesser merit points. He neither challenged that decision nor amended O.A. No. 826 of 2014 to incorporate the subsequent order and seek consequential relief.

The earlier O.A. was dismissed specifically because the respondents had reconsidered his candidature and the 2018 rejection remained unchallenged; that reasoning was subsequently affirmed by the High Court.

Consequently, the applicant could not use the 2024 representation and its rejection to create a fresh cause of action or reopen the same claim. The Tribunal therefore treated the present proceedings as barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, notwithstanding that the merits of the 2018 decision had not been independently examined in the earlier O.A.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal clarified that dismissal of the O.A. would not preclude the respondents from reconsidering the applicant’s candidature in accordance with the applicable rules, if they chose to do so.