Authorities must consider compassionate appointment claims, including parity with similarly situated candidates, through a reasoned order.

The applicant’s mother, Haseena Akhter, was serving as a Teacher in Zone P/S Larkipora (B) and died during active service on 16 December 2015.

Since the applicant was born on 13 April 2002 and was underage when her mother died, her claim for compassionate appointment could not then be considered; however, the Directorate of School Education permitted resubmission after she attained the prescribed age.

Following her attaining majority, her case was resubmitted in 2020 and 2021. The Directorate sought identification of a suitable Class-IV post, and the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama, identified a vacant Lab Bearer post at Higher Secondary School, Noorpora.

The applicant’s dependency was subsequently re-verified by the Deputy Commissioner on 31 August 2022.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, including her claim for treatment on the same analogy as a similarly situated candidate, under the applicable rules and SRO-43.

Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned order after giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal referred to the applicable compassionate-appointment framework, including Rule 3(1) and its proviso and Rule 7, which govern eligibility and relaxation, as well as SRO-43, under which compassionate appointment was claimed.

The governing principle is that compassionate appointment is an exception intended to mitigate hardship caused to a family by the death of its breadwinner, subject to satisfaction of the prescribed eligibility conditions, availability of a suitable post, and compliance with the applicable rules.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had placed on record material concerning her mother’s in-service death, dependency, underage status at the relevant time, subsequent attainment of the prescribed age, identification of a Class-IV post, and the alleged comparable appointment of another candidate.

However, because the applicant herself confined the relief sought to consideration of her claim by the competent authority, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to retain the matter or determine the merits directly.

Accordingly, it directed the respondents to examine the Original Application and accompanying documents as a representation, including the claim based on parity with the similarly situated candidate, subject to the applicant’s eligibility, entitlement, the applicable rules, and the absence of any legal impediment.

The Tribunal also required an opportunity of hearing and permitted the applicant to submit additional material before a reasoned decision was made.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment—including her claim for similar treatment to the comparable candidate—in accordance with the applicable law and rules, afford her an opportunity of hearing, and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the order.

All questions of fact and law were expressly left open. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.