An employer cannot rely on its own assessment errors to deny compassionate appointment.

The respondent’s father, Shahabbudin Abdul Latif Ansari, a Lineman employed with BSNL, died on 28 July 2000. The respondent’s mother initially sought compassionate appointment, but her application was rejected on 1 May 2001. The respondent was a minor at the time of his father’s death and attained majority on 28 December 2007. He applied for compassionate appointment on 4 March 2008 and submitted further representations in 2009 and 2012, stating that he had also lost his mother and that the family was in financial distress. His claim was rejected by communication dated 25 September 2012.

The Circle High Power Committee (“CHPC”) awarded him 42 weightage points against the prescribed benchmark of 55. The Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) found that 10 points had been wrongly denied under the accommodation criterion and that an unjustified deduction of 25 points had been made instead of 15 points. It accordingly assessed the respondent at 62 points, quashed the rejection, and directed reconsideration of his claim.

The Department’s review petition before the CAT, based on alleged errors concerning dependants, family pension, divorce documents, and service particulars, was dismissed because these were new grounds and did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Department challenged the CAT’s orders before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court held that the Department had largely abandoned the original errors identified by the CAT and was attempting to introduce fresh objections after the litigation had substantially progressed.

Whether the CHPC had incorrectly assessed the respondent’s weightage points by denying accommodation points and making an unsupported deduction, thereby rendering the rejection of compassionate appointment unsustainable?

Whether the CAT was justified in rejecting the Department’s review petition when the Department sought to rely on new factual grounds concerning dependants, family pension, divorce documents, and service particulars?

Whether the Department could rely on subsequent developments or its own alleged assessment errors to defeat the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment?

Whether the respondent was entitled to a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds after the prolonged pendency of his claim?

The Court applied BSNL’s compassionate-appointment scheme and its weightage-point assessment criteria, under which a candidate meeting or exceeding the benchmark of 55 points was eligible for consideration by the Corporate High Power Committee.

It applied the principle that a person residing in a house owned by an uncle cannot be treated as residing in his own or his family’s house; consequently, where the applicable criteria awarded points to a family without its own accommodation, those points could not be denied merely because the candidate was living rent-free in a relative’s house.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to introduce entirely new grounds or undertake a fresh reassessment in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record.

It further held that an administrative authority cannot rely on its own subsequent discovery of alleged errors, particularly where the original assessment was made by a committee of senior officers and the applicant had disclosed the relevant facts.

The Court upheld the CAT’s conclusion that the CHPC had improperly awarded zero points for accommodation even though the respondent did not own the house in which he lived; the fact that the house belonged to his uncle did not make it the respondent’s or his family’s property.

The Department also failed to justify the deduction of 25 points, and its representative had accepted that only 15 points could properly have been deducted. These errors resulted in at least 20 points being wrongly denied, increasing the respondent’s score from 42 to 62, above the benchmark of 55.

The Court further rejected the Department’s later objections regarding the number of dependants and the respondent’s divorced sister because the respondent had disclosed his sisters and had produced divorce documents; any mistake by the CHPC in evaluating those materials could not be attributed to him.

The subsequent sanction of family pension in 2015 could not retrospectively affect the respondent’s application, since no family pension was being paid when the relevant application was made.

Similarly, later-discovered objections and alleged errors concerning service particulars could not justify denial of the claim, particularly when the Department itself had made the assessment through a five-member senior committee.

Given that the compassionate-appointment claim had remained unresolved for approximately 26 years, the Court regarded the Department’s conduct as an attempt to find successive grounds to defeat the claim.

The petitioners were directed to appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the CAT’s directions, within six weeks from the date of judgment and to file a compliance report before the Court; failing compliance, the matter was to be listed thereafter.

The Court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000, directed in the judgment to be payable to the petitioners.