Authorities must apply uniform marking standards and verified guidelines when assessing merit points for compassionate appointment.

Applicant No. 1, Sonu Kumar, applied for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a departmental employee, on April 30, 2015

His application was rejected via an impugned order dated September 27, 2018, on the grounds that he secured 35 marks against a cut-off of 55 for the year 2016-17

During the pendency of the litigation, the respondents filed a supplementary counter-affidavit recalculating the applicant's score to 51 marks, which still fell short of the cut-off

The applicant contested this calculation, asserting that under the revised Ministry of Defence (MOD) guidelines of 2018, his score should be 65 marks based on parameters like family pension, income certificates, and the number of dependents

Applicant No. 2 did not press for relief

1. Whether the respondents applied the correct criteria and marking standards in evaluating the applicant’s merit points for compassionate appointment

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a reassessment of his claim based on the revised Ministry of Defence guidelines

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The primary legal framework included the Ministry of Defence (MOD) ID No. 19(2)/2017-D LAB dated 09.01.2018, which revised the merit point system and procedures for compassionate appointments previously governed by MOD orders dated 22.01.2010 and 14.05.2010

The court also referred to the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013, which provides the consolidated scheme for compassionate appointments across Central Government departments and defines "dependent family members"

The Tribunal scrutinized the disparity between the respondents' revised score of 51 and the applicant's claim of 65 marks

The applicant highlighted specific errors in the assessment of "family pension" (claiming 20/20 marks for a pension of Rs. 9,000), "monthly income" (supported by a Tehsildar’s certificate), and "dependents" (arguing that dependent sons were excluded despite the 2013 DOPT OM definition)

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to demonstrate a uniform application of marking standards for the subject year

It reasoned that a fresh reassessment was necessary to verify the applicant's claims against available records and the specific parameters of the 2018 revised scheme to ensure the evaluation was objective and consistent with the prevailing rules

The respondents were directed to apply a uniform marking standard for each parameter applicable to the subject year and conduct a reassessment of the applicant’s marks

The Tribunal further ordered that if the applicant’s reassessed score meets or exceeds the cut-off marks for the year he was considered, he must be granted a compassionate appointment

The respondents were given three months to complete this exercise from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order