Facts
The applicant’s father, a Senior Accountant in the respondent department, died in harness on 04.01.2010
Source reference: p. 2The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 25.02.2010. His initial application was rejected in 2011 due to a lack of vacancies and a policy change regarding married sons
Source reference: p. 2-3The applicant previously filed OA No. 202/330/2015, where the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his case two more times
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) reconsidered his application in meetings held on 09.11.2017 and 29.10.2018
Source reference: p. 3, 7On both occasions, the applicant was not selected as other candidates secured higher merit marks based on the revised evaluation parameters
Source reference: p. 7-8The applicant challenged the order dated 09.11.2018, alleging arbitrariness and seeking consideration for vacancies from 2016–2019
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or in violation of the Tribunal’s earlier directions in rejecting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment
Source reference: p. 7-82. Whether an applicant has a vested right to be appointed on compassionate grounds irrespective of merit and vacancy limitations
Source reference: p. 4, 9Law Applied
Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) OM No. 14014/2/2012-Estd. (D), which limits compassionate appointments to 5% of direct recruitment vacancies in Group ‘C’
Source reference: p. 4Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Smt. Radhika Thirumalai, which establish that such appointments are contingent upon vacancy availability
Source reference: p. 4Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, affirming that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an ameliorating relief to tide over immediate financial crises, and cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable time
Source reference: p. 9-10LIC v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar, stating that Tribunals can only direct the "consideration" of a claim, not the appointment itself
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the previous judicial direction to consider the applicant’s case two additional times
Source reference: p. 7Upon review of the comparative merit charts provided by the respondents (Annexure R-5), the Tribunal noted that the applicant scored significantly lower (75 and 90 marks) than the selected candidates (who scored between 120 and 140 marks) in the 2017 and 2018 DSC meetings
Source reference: p. 7-8The court observed that the respondents utilized an objective, revised evaluation system based on specific parameters to ensure fairness
Source reference: p. 8Since the applicant failed to secure the required merit position and the selection process was conducted in an objective manner, there was no evidence of arbitrariness or "pick and choose" tactics
Source reference: p. 8-9The court further emphasized that the objective of the scheme is to relieve immediate penury, and the applicant's family had managed to subsist for several years since the death in 2010
Source reference: p. 5, 9Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant had no vested right to appointment and that the respondents had fulfilled their legal obligation by considering his case three times in total
Directing a fourth or subsequent consideration was deemed unnecessary as the family had survived the immediate crisis. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.11.2018 and dismissed the Original Application
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Ravi PhalkevsComptroller And Auditor General Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in