Compassionate appointment decisions based on comparative merit warrant no interference absent demonstrable evaluative error.

The applicant’s father, a Head Havildar under the respondents, died in service on 28 June 2010, leaving behind his wife and three children. The applicant sought compassionate appointment and submitted a formal request on 18 February 2013. When no decision was communicated, he obtained information under the RTI Act in 2016, which disclosed that vacancies existed but no appointment had been made from the relevant selection process.

The applicant earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 283/2016. By order dated 8 October 2018, the Tribunal directed Respondent No. 1 to reconsider his application on the basis of the available documents and make a reasoned recommendation.

The respondents stated that the applicant was initially not considered because he was married, in accordance with the then-prevailing policy. After the policy position changed, his case was considered in subsequent years. The Committees did not recommend him because other candidates were found more meritorious.

Under the point-based assessment introduced in 2019, the applicant secured 42 points, whereas 11 candidates with higher scores were recommended.

Whether the applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment merely because his application had initially not been considered on the ground that he was a married son, after the relevant policy position was subsequently changed

Whether the subsequent consideration of the applicant’s case by the Compassionate Appointment Committee was arbitrary, unlawful, or based on an erroneous assessment of comparative merit

Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the Committee’s decision not to recommend the applicant for appointment

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended to provide relief to the most deserving and financially distressed family of a deceased government employee, rather than confer an indefeasible right to employment.

Eligibility must be assessed under the applicable Government policy and on the basis of the prescribed criteria and comparative merit.

The Tribunal applied the DoP&T scheme and instructions governing compassionate appointment, including the policy position concerning married sons and the subsequent point-based assessment system.

The Committee’s administrative determination is not ordinarily subject to interference unless it is shown to be arbitrary, legally erroneous, procedurally defective, or based on an incorrect assessment of the relevant factors.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had submitted his application within time but found that his initial non-consideration was attributable to the then-existing policy, under which a married son was not eligible for consideration.

Once that position changed, the respondents considered his case along with other similarly situated married male applicants. The Committee recommended only those candidates found more meritorious.

In the later point-based assessment, the applicant obtained 42 points and was not among the 11 candidates selected for recommendation.

The Tribunal held that the applicant did not identify any omitted criterion, computational error, wrongly recommended candidate, or basis to establish that he was more deserving than the candidates recommended.

It further held that the date of the deceased employee’s death had no material relevance once the prescribed point system assessed the family’s present financial and social circumstances.

In the absence of proof that the Committee’s evaluation was faulty or arbitrary, judicial interference was unwarranted.

No illegality, arbitrariness, or defect in the Committee’s assessment was established.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.