Compassionate appointment eligibility must be assessed under the qualifications in force when the application was made.

The applicant’s father, a Railway Gangman, died in service on 19 July 2009.

The applicant asserted that he applied for compassionate appointment in 2010 and made further representations; his claim remained pending.

Following an earlier Tribunal direction to consider his representation, the respondents rejected the claim on 13 November 2018, stating that he had passed only Class VIII and lacked the prescribed qualification of Class X, ITI, or equivalent.

The applicant challenged that rejection, arguing that his eligibility should be assessed under the rules in force when he applied.

1. Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s claim by applying an educational qualification prescribed after the date on which he claimed to have applied for compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the rejection order should be set aside and the claim reconsidered under the rules and educational qualifications applicable on the date of the original application.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Jal Board v. Nirmala Devi, Civil Appeal No. 7047 of 2022, which held that, for compassionate appointment, the qualification prevailing on the date of application—not the date when the application is considered—is to be applied.

The Railway Board instructions prescribing the qualification for the relevant post were also considered; the Tribunal directed that the competent authority determine which instructions and educational qualification applied when the applicant made his original application.

The applicant claimed to have applied in 2010, while the respondents did not dispute that his claim remained pending and was considered only after the Tribunal’s 2018 direction.

The rejection relied on an educational qualification that the applicant said had been prescribed later.

Applying Nirmala Devi, the Tribunal held that the authority had to first verify the date and contents of the original application and assess the claim against the qualification applicable on that date.

It therefore found the rejection unsustainable insofar as it relied solely on the subsequent qualification.

It directed the respondents to verify the applicant’s original application and reconsider his claim under the rules and educational qualification applicable on that date, issuing a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.