Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Directed in the Absence of Available Vacancies Within the Prescribed Quota

The applicant’s father, a Senior Accountant under the Accountant General (A)-II, U.P., died in harness on January 12, 2012

The family received terminal benefits and a family pension

The applicant applied for a compassionate appointment in 2012 and was interviewed five times between 2013 and 2017

In each instance, the Departmental Selection Committee (DSC) deferred the case due to a "shortfall of vacancies"

Following a 2018 review, the DSC rejected the applicant’s claim via an order dated March 11, 2019, noting that the daughter’s marriage in 2017 had reduced the family's financial liabilities

The applicant challenged this rejection as arbitrary and illegal

1. Whether the respondents’ decision to reject the application for compassionate appointment after multiple years of deferral due to vacancy shortfalls was legally sustainable

2. Whether the reduction in family liability (due to the sister's marriage) and the receipt of terminal benefits justified the denial of appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules

The court applied the prevailing Government of India and Comptroller Auditor General guidelines regarding compassionate appointments, which limit such appointments to a maximum of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies in Group ‘C’ posts

The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar [JT 1996 (5) S.C. 319], which held that compassionate appointments cannot be made in the absence of a vacancy

It further cited Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar [JT 1994 (2) S.C. 183], establishing that Courts and Tribunals cannot direct an appointment on compassionate grounds but can only direct the consideration of such claims

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had complied with procedural requirements by repeatedly considering the applicant's case over a six-year period (2013–2018)

The court noted that the repeated deferrals were solely due to the non-availability of vacancies under the 5% quota prescribed by law

The analysis emphasized that the primary objective of the scheme is to provide immediate financial relief to prevent penury, and the DSC is entitled to assess the family's evolving financial condition

Since the family had received terminal benefits and the financial burden had decreased following the daughter's marriage in 2017, the court reasoned that the respondents' final rejection was neither arbitrary nor a violation of the rules

The court concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to mandate a "supernumerary" appointment or override the factual absence of a vacancy

The court ruled that in the absence of available vacancies, no direction for appointment could be issued

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed, the impugned order dated March 11, 2019, was upheld, and no relief was granted