Compassionate appointment is not an inherent right and depends strictly on policy compliance and vacancy availability.

The applicant’s father, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Delhi Police, died in service on February 12, 2023

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment in April 2023.

A Screening Committee meeting held on September 5, 2024, rejected the application due to the non-availability of vacancies for the posts of Constable (Executive) and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS)

Subsequent representations and an appeal to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi were dismissed on the grounds that the applicant was over-aged for the post of Constable (Exe.) and no vacancies existed for the post of MTS

The applicant challenged the rejection orders dated October 16, 2024, March 24, 2025, and January 19, 2026, before the Tribunal

1. Whether the applicant has a vested legal right to claim compassionate appointment regardless of age eligibility and vacancy availability

2. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's claim were legally sustainable and reasoned

The Tribunal applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not an inherent or heritable right but must be governed strictly by existing policy and recruitment rules

Punjab Power Corporation Ltd. v. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774, which held that compassionate appointment must conform to the prevailing policy

State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, which established that public office is not heritable and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right

The age parameters for direct recruitment (30 years for SC category for Constable) apply equally to compassionate appointments

The Tribunal examined the respondents' contention that the applicant exceeded the maximum age limit of 30 years prescribed for the SC category for the post of Constable (Executive)

The Tribunal further observed that the respondents had explicitly stated in the impugned orders that no vacancies existed for the post of MTS

Since compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and not a matter of right, the applicant could not demand appointment in contravention of the policy requirements regarding age and vacancy

The Tribunal found that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and the Lieutenant Governor were "well-reasoned" and based on the factual ineligibility of the applicant

The Tribunal concluded that the claim was not maintainable and the impugned orders were valid. Consequently, the Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed at the admission stage with no order as to costs