Compassionate appointment is an exception to constitutional equality and not a vested right of inheritance.

The applicant’s father, a Driver Grade-I at the Geological Survey of India (GSI), died in harness on June 17, 2005

The applicant sought compassionate appointment and previously approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 17/2014 and O.A. No. 312/2017, resulting in directions for the respondents to consider his case

In 2018, Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) on a compassionate basis

The applicant challenged this appointment and the rejection of his own application dated June 4, 2019, alleging that the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) committed errors in merit scoring

Specifically, he claimed his landholding was exaggerated to deny him points, while Respondent No. 4’s property and marital status were incorrectly assessed

An internal Investigating Committee re-evaluated the scores, concluding that Respondent No. 4 secured 68 relative merit points while the applicant secured 53 points

1. Whether the selection of Respondent No. 4 over the applicant was arbitrary or based on a flawed evaluation of relative merit points

2. Whether the applicant remains entitled to compassionate appointment nearly 20 years after the death of the primary breadwinner

The court applied the Departmental Scheme on compassionate appointment, which utilizes a 100-point relative merit system based on parameters such as terminal benefits, property, and dependents

It relied on the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16, noting that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of merit-based public recruitment

The court cited State of Chhatisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, establishing that such appointments are not a matter of inheritance

State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, which held that the necessity for compassionate appointment disappears if the family survives for a substantial period after the employee's death

Union of India v. Shashank Goswami was invoked to emphasize that the appointment is intended only to alleviate immediate financial crises

The Tribunal examined the respondents' re-evaluation process conducted by an Investigating Committee following the applicant's grievances

The Committee scrutinized personal files and service records of all candidates from the 2018 CAC cycle

The analysis revealed that even after re-evaluation, the applicant's score (53 points) remained significantly lower than that of Respondent No. 4 (68 points)

The court reasoned that the department followed the prescribed guidelines and that no injustice was caused since the higher-merit candidate was selected

Crucially, the court observed that since the applicant’s father died in 2005, the lapse of 20 years mitigated the claim of an "immediate" financial crisis

Applying the cited precedents, the court found that the survival of the family over two decades disqualified the applicant from bypassing standard recruitment procedures under Article 14

The court answered the issues by affirming the validity of Respondent No. 4’s appointment and ruling that the applicant had no vested right to appointment after such a prolonged period

The Original Application was dismissed with no order as to costs