Compassionate appointment is not a vested right after three unsuccessful scheme-based considerations.

The applicant’s husband, a Telecom Mechanic employed by BSNL, died in harness on 30 December 2012, leaving behind the applicant and their daughter.

The applicant applied for compassionate ground appointment, claiming financial hardship, absence of property, residence in a rented house, outstanding loans, and dependence on family pension.

Her application was processed under the BSNL compassionate appointment scheme and was assessed at 56 weightage points.

The High Power Committee considered her case for three consecutive years—2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18—but she was not appointed because available vacancies were insufficient.

Under the BSNL Corporate Office Circular dated 1 October 2014, cases with 55 or more points could be considered for three consecutive years, after which the applicant would be removed from the list for future consideration.

The respondents consequently treated the applicant’s case as permanently closed after the third attempt.

The applicant challenged the rejection/closure communicated through letter dated 30 September 2023, contending that her weightage score exceeded 55 and that there was no applicable time limit for reconsideration.

Whether the applicant was entitled to continued or renewed consideration for compassionate appointment merely because she had secured 56 weightage points but had not been appointed for want of vacancies?

Whether the respondents acted unlawfully in closing the applicant’s case after considering it for three consecutive years under the BSNL Circular dated 1 October 2014?

Whether the applicant had an enforceable or vested right to compassionate appointment after the lapse of several years from her husband’s death?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was filed.

It applied the BSNL Corporate Office Circular dated 1 October 2014, which provided that cases obtaining 55 or more net points were eligible for consideration, but that such applications would be considered for three consecutive years based on the availability of CGA-quota vacancies, after which the applicant would be excluded from future consideration.

The Tribunal further relied on Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao, (1994) 1 SCC 192, holding that compassionate appointment is intended to relieve the family from immediate financial distress, is not a vested right, and cannot ordinarily be granted after an unreasonable lapse of time.

It also relied on Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006, decided on 5 April 2011, which held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely because the claimant is a dependent and must be assessed in light of the family’s financial resources and the deprivation caused by the employee’s death.

The Tribunal also accepted the principle that compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of direct recruitment and is subject to the governing scheme, financial conditions, and availability of vacancies.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim arose from her 2014 application following her husband’s death in 2012 and therefore had to be determined under the applicable BSNL scheme and circular.

Although her score of 56 points made her eligible for consideration, it did not confer an automatic right to appointment.

The record showed that the High Power Committee considered her case in each of the three prescribed years, but the available vacancies were awarded to candidates with higher scores; several candidates with higher or equal scores were also not appointed.

Consequently, the respondents’ failure to appoint her was attributable to the limited CGA vacancies rather than arbitrary exclusion.

Since the governing circular expressly limited consideration to three consecutive years, the permanent closure of her case after the third consideration was consistent with the scheme.

The passage of time since the employee’s death also weakened the claim, as compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate financial crisis and not to create a continuing employment entitlement.

It held that a weightage score of 56 did not create a vested right to compassionate appointment and that the respondents had lawfully considered her case for the three consecutive years prescribed by the BSNL scheme.

The Original Application was dismissed, the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed, and no order as to costs was made.