Comparative-merit decisions on compassionate appointment warrant no interference absent demonstrated illegality.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment following his father’s death in harness on 14 March 2019.

The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) considered his case against vacancies for 2019 and 2020, awarding him 41 marks; the last candidates recommended had scored 48 and 45 marks, respectively.

On reconsideration under a revised scheme, he received 49 marks, while the last candidate recommended for 2021 had scored 58 marks.

The applicant challenged the assessments, principally alleging that no marks were awarded under the property criterion because the value of a Faridabad house and ancestral land had been attributed to his family without accounting for co-ownership.

He also produced a 2000 sale deed showing the original purchase price of the house.

The respondents maintained that the assessment was based on the applicant’s own 2020 declaration valuing the house at Rs. 32,00,000 and the revenue report valuing the agricultural land at Rs. 8,18,000.

1. Whether the respondents’ assessment of the applicant’s property and resulting relative-merit score was arbitrary or contrary to the applicable scheme, warranting interference with the rejection of the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment, or further reconsideration, on the basis of the alleged scoring error and his subsequent reconsideration under the revised scheme.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the application.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment intended to provide immediate relief to a family in financial distress; it does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

Selection is governed by the applicable scheme and relative-merit criteria, and where the competent committee has assessed candidates objectively under those criteria, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment absent illegality or arbitrariness.

The Tribunal relied on Pradeep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 200/00378/2016 (decided 26 June 2019), for the principle that a relative-merit assessment made under prescribed guidelines ordinarily does not warrant interference.

The Tribunal found that the property assessment was based on the applicant’s own affidavit, in which he declared the Faridabad house’s value as Rs. 32,00,000, and on the revenue report valuing the ancestral land; he had not supplied material during the relevant assessments establishing the asserted co-ownership or fractional shares.

The later sale deed established the original purchase price, but did not displace the applicant’s subsequent declaration of the property’s value for the relevant assessment.

Further, even accepting the respondents’ calculation that a one-fourth share would reduce the attributable property value to Rs. 10,04,500, the applicant would receive only two additional marks, taking his score to 43—still below the last recommended candidates for 2019 and 2020.

His later score of 49 under the revised scheme likewise remained below the 58 marks obtained by the last candidate recommended for 2021.

The Tribunal therefore found no demonstrated breach of the scheme or arbitrary assessment.

It found no infirmity in the CRC’s consideration or in the communications dated 6 September 2021 and 10 January 2023, dismissed the Original Application, disposed of any pending miscellaneous application, and made no order as to costs.