Compassionate appointment claims rejected thrice under merit-point guidelines warrant no further reconsideration.

The applicants are the widow and son of Late Pradeep Kumar, who died in harness on July 23, 2016, while serving as a Postman at Digha Sub Post Office, Patna

Applicant No. 2 (the son) applied for a compassionate appointment to mitigate the family's financial crisis

His application was considered and rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) on three successive occasions: in 2019 (awarded 41 points against a 61 cut-off), in 2021 (awarded 59 points against a 62 cut-off), and in 2023 (awarded 71 points against a 78 cut-off)

The final rejection, communicated via letter dated May 1, 2023, cited Directorate Letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II, which stipulates that cases considered three times but not recommended based on the Relative Merit Point System (RMPS) must be closed

The applicants challenged this rejection, alleging that the points were awarded arbitrarily and that the 2022 guidelines were erroneously applied retrospectively

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment after three considerations was legally sustainable under the prevailing guidelines

2. Whether the respondents erred in applying the Directorate Letter dated March 23, 2022, regarding the closure of cases after three unsuccessful attempts

3. Whether there was a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice in the communicative process of the rejection

The court applied the scheme for compassionate appointments within the Department of Posts, which limits such appointments to a 5% quota of total vacancies

The selection process is governed by the Relative Merit Point System (RMPS), where points are awarded based on indigency and liabilities left by the deceased

The court specifically relied on Postal Directorate Letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated March 23, 2022, which mandates that cases considered three times and not recommended by the CRC are liable to be closed

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s case was duly considered in three separate vacancy years (2018, 2020, and 2021) by the competent authority

On each occasion, the applicant failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks required to fall within the limited 5% quota as determined by the CRC

The Tribunal noted that RMPS points are dynamic and vary annually based on the relative merit of the entire pool of candidates

It found that the respondents acted in strict accordance with the 2022 guidelines, which require the closure of cases after three unsuccessful considerations

The Tribunal rejected the plea of retrospective misapplication, holding that the three considerations were factual and the subsequent closure was a procedural mandate

Furthermore, since the results were communicated to the applicants, the Tribunal found no violation of the Principles of Natural Justice

The court held that seeking repeated reconsideration in violation of the prescribed guidelines is unjust

The prayer for compassionate appointment was denied as the applicant failed to qualify on merit across three permissible attempts

No order as to costs was made