Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and depends on relative merit within limited vacancy quotas.

Late Mubarak Ali, a gardener (Mali) with the NDMC, died in harness on February 20, 2018

His widow, Firdaush Jahan (40% disabled), and son, Sadab Ali, sought compassionate appointment for the latter

Sadab Ali was granted temporary engagement on a daily wage basis for limited periods but was not regularized

After initial litigation (O.A. No. 21/2021), the respondents considered 1,149 candidates for compassionate appointment against 47 available vacancies

Following a point-based merit system, the applicant was placed at Serial No. 492, whereas only the top 47 candidates were appointed

The applicants challenged the speaking order dated December 13, 2023, alleging arbitrariness, lack of transparency, and failure to account for the mother’s disability marks in the son's assessment

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or in violation of established policy by denying regular compassionate appointment to Applicant No. 2 despite his inclusion in the eligibility lists.

2. Whether the disability of the widow (Applicant No. 1) entitles her son (Applicant No. 2) to additional marks or a transfer of "disability status" under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Master Circular on Scheme of Compassionate Appointment issued by the DoPT (O.M. No. 14014/1/2022-Estt (D))

Compassionate appointment is not a vested legal right or a regular source of recruitment, but a restricted provision (5% quota) intended solely to provide immediate financial succor to a family in penury to tide over an economic crisis (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana; LIC v. Mrs. Asha Ramachandran Ambedkar; Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar).

The Tribunal found that the respondents followed a transparent, objective "point-based" scoring system to evaluate the 1,149 applicants

It noted that Applicant No. 2 failed to meet the merit threshold, ranking 492nd against only 47 vacancies

The court rejected the applicants' contention that the widow's disability marks should be transferred to the son, noting that no such provision exists in the governing rules

The Tribunal observed that the family had received all terminal benefits (GPF, gratuity, leave encashment) and was receiving a family pension, indicating they were not in a state of extreme indigence or "impecunious conditions" that would override the merit-based selection of more deserving candidates within the 5% quota

The court ruled that the applicant did not secure enough marks under the objective criteria to qualify for the limited 47 posts, and the claim for transferring disability marks was legally untenable