Compassionate appointment depends on scheme criteria and vacancy limits, not merely submitting an application.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 05 August 2021 and appoint her to a suitable post on compassionate grounds.

The respondents stated that compassionate appointments were restricted to a maximum of 5% of vacancies under the direct-recruitment quota pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 27 dated 26 April 2018. The petitioner’s application was considered along with eleven other applications and she was ranked fourth under the point-based merit system with 48 points. The candidate ranked first was rejected as a second-class heir; the candidate ranked second, who was offered appointment, resigned; and the candidate ranked third, with 51 points, was thereafter appointed and joined service.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for compassionate appointment merely on the basis of her application and representation dated 05 August 2021.

Whether the respondents had acted contrary to the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme by not appointing the petitioner, having regard to the 5% vacancy ceiling and the comparative merit of candidates.

Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post on compassionate grounds.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution governing the issuance of writs, including mandamus, and the principles regulating compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rule of recruitment and is not an automatic or vested right arising merely from the submission of an application.

The applicant must satisfy the conditions of the applicable scheme, including the requirement of financial distress or penurious circumstances and other prescribed eligibility criteria. The Court further applied G.O. Ms. No. 27 dated 26 April 2018, which permits compassionate appointments up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies under the direct-recruitment quota and requires selection in accordance with the prescribed rules and guidelines.

The Court held that submission of an application alone did not create an entitlement to compassionate appointment; the petitioner’s claim had to be assessed strictly under the governing scheme and its eligibility and vacancy limitations.

The respondents’ counter demonstrated that compassionate appointments were confined to 5% of direct-recruitment vacancies and that the petitioner’s application had been evaluated through a point-based merit system. Since the petitioner ranked fourth with 48 points, while the third-ranked candidate secured 51 points and was appointed after the higher-ranked candidate was rejected and the second-ranked candidate resigned, the Court found that the selection process had followed the applicable rules and guidelines. There was therefore no demonstrated illegality or failure of duty warranting mandamus.

The writ petition seeking a direction to consider and appoint the petitioner was dismissed, with no order as to costs.