Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must follow strict rules and merit-based criteria.

The applicant's mother, a permanent MTS employee of Respondent No. 3 for over 30 years, died due to COVID-19 on September 13, 2020.

The applicant then submitted an application for compassionate appointment against a Group-D post on August 23, 2021.

As the application was not considered, he submitted a representation on March 15, 2022, and subsequently filed O.A. No. 355/2022, which was disposed of on July 27, 2022, directing the respondents to consider his representation.

The applicant then filed a contempt petition (C.P. No. 58/2023) due to continued inaction by the respondents.

The respondents stated that the applicant's initial application was received at NIC Headquarters on December 13, 2021, after the Departmental Committee meeting for compassionate appointments for 2021 had already convened on November 22, 2021.

Consequently, his application could not be considered for the 2021 recruitment year.

In response to the O.A. and contempt petition, the respondents considered the applicant's case for the 2022 recruitment year.

The Departmental Committee, which met on September 17, 2024, and September 26, 2024, considered 72 applications for 2 vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment.

The applicant scored 42 points out of 100, placing him at the 49th position as per the Relative Merit Point System.

The respondents cited the constraint of a 5% quota for compassionate appointments as per DOPT guidelines (OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated August 2, 2022), which prevented the applicant from being short-listed.

The applicant challenged the rejection letter dated November 25, 2024.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, or unsustainable in law.

2. Whether the respondents' action of not considering the applicant's case for the 2021 recruitment year due to delayed receipt of his application, and subsequent rejection based on merit points for 2022, warrants interference by the Tribunal.

The court applied the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right but a concession, an exception to the general rule of public employment, and must strictly adhere to the governing rules and guidelines.

The court referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in *Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das and Others* ((2008) 15 SCC 560), which held that compassionate appointment requires prior provision in rules, must establish the death of the sole breadwinner, and is meant for minimum relief, considering the constitutional philosophy of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The court also noted that such appointments are limited to a maximum of 5% of vacancies under the direct recruitment quota in Group C posts as per consolidated guidelines issued by the DOPT vide OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated August 2, 2022.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's argument that his application, dated August 23, 2021, should have been considered for the 2021 recruitment year, arguing that the respondents intentionally delayed acknowledging receipt until December 13, 2021, after the Departmental Committee meeting on November 22, 2021.

The applicant contended that the respondents should not benefit from their own laches and should have constituted a special/review DPC for 2021, potentially creating a supernumerary post.

However, the respondents maintained that the application was received after the 2021 DPC had convened.

Following a previous order from the Tribunal, the applicant's case was considered for the 2022 recruitment year along with 72 other applicants for two vacancies.

The applicant scored 42 points out of 100 on the Relative Merit Point System, placing him at the 49th position.

The Tribunal acknowledged that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must follow strict rules and guidelines, including the 5% quota for such appointments.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not challenge the correctness of the merit points awarded or the assessment of his financial condition.

Applying the precedents from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that compassionate appointments are an exception to general recruitment and must be granted cautiously to avoid infringing on the rights of other eligible citizens.

The O.A. was dismissed, being devoid of merit, with no costs.