Compassionate appointment is not a right and must follow merit-based rankings under the applicable scheme.

The Respondent’s husband, a Mate (FGM) with the Garrison Engineer, died in service on February 13, 2009

The Respondent applied for a compassionate appointment on May 30, 2019

Her application was reconsidered for the years 2009–2012 following the availability of vacancies

Under the applicable Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Ministry of Defence schemes, she was awarded 74 merit points based on parameters like pension and terminal benefits

Her application was rejected on July 26, 2012, as her score was lower than the last selected candidates for those years

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed her original application (O.A. 1539/2014), holding that the availability of vacancies contradicted the Petitioners' stance and that she was treated unfairly given her indigent situation

The Petitioners challenged the CAT's orders dated May 12, 2017, and October 12, 2018

1. Whether the denial of compassionate appointment to the Respondent was arbitrary, discriminatory, or inconsistent with the applicable merit-based scheme

2. Whether the Tribunal is empowered to substitute its own assessment of a candidate's financial distress for that of the competent authority

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is a claim traceable strictly to the specific scheme and rules framed by the employer

It relied on Supreme Court precedents, including State of U.P. v. Premlata, State of Karnataka v. V. Somyashree, and N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, to affirm that such appointments must adhere to the prescribed selection criteria

The court also followed the point-based assessment system mandated by the DoPT O.M. dated October 9, 1998, and Ministry of Defence instructions dated March 9, 2001

The court found that the Respondent’s score of 74 points was factually lower than the cut-off points for the relevant years: 85 (2009-10), 81 (2010-11), and 78 (2011-12)

It observed that the selection was strictly merit-based and the Respondent failed to provide evidence that any candidate with fewer points was appointed ahead of her

The court determined that the Tribunal erred by making subjective assumptions regarding the Respondent’s financial distress and "unfair treatment" while ignoring the objective merit-based results

The court emphasized that the Tribunal cannot substitute its judgment for the competent authority’s assessment made under a valid scheme

No arbitrariness was found in the Petitioners' shifting stance on vacancies, as the Respondent’s case was duly reconsidered once vacancies eventually arose

The court held that the rejection of the Respondent's application was a natural consequence of her lower merit position and did not warrant judicial interference

However, the court included an observation that the authorities may, at their discretion, attempt to accommodate the Respondent on humanitarian grounds due to financial hardship, though this observation does not create a legal right