Compassionate appointment not a right; rejection valid if based on comparative assessment and rules.

The applicant's father, Late Rajendra Singh, a Packer in the Department of Posts, died in harness on July 6, 2003.

His family received terminal benefits of Rs. 2,78,921/- and his widow was sanctioned a family pension of approximately Rs. 3,500/- per month.

The family owned a house and agricultural land providing annual income.

The applicant's mother and later the applicant himself, submitted applications for compassionate appointment.

The application was processed and placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) in multiple meetings in 2008 and 2009.

The CRC considered 431 cases against 93 identified vacancies within the 5% compassionate quota.

The committee, after a comparative assessment of cases based on financial condition, social liabilities, and other factors, did not recommend the applicant due to limited vacancies.

The applicant's claim was formally rejected by respondent no. 3 via an order dated February 5, 2010, which was communicated on March 10, 2010.

The applicant challenged this decision before the High Court, which dismissed the petition on November 27, 2014, granting liberty to approach this Tribunal.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment vide order dated February 5, 2010, suffers from arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or violation of applicable guidelines governing compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing compassionate appointment, noting it is not a matter of right but an exception to open competition, strictly governed by the scheme framed by the government and subject to prescribed ceiling limits.

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, which held compassionate appointment is an exception intended to relieve immediate financial distress, not a vested right.

State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, which established that such appointments are strictly governed by employer schemes and courts cannot direct appointments outside policy.

This principle was reiterated in Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307.

The relevant Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) instructions and Postal Directorate letters regarding the 5% ceiling and criteria for consideration were also applied.

The court found that the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) considered the applicant's case in accordance with applicable DOPT instructions and Postal Directorate guidelines.

The CRC undertook a comparative assessment of 431 eligible candidates against only 93 available vacancies within the 5% ceiling limit.

The committee detailed its consideration of factors like the family's financial condition, dependencies, minor children, marriage liabilities, aged parents, and medical conditions.

The Tribunal noted that compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception to direct recruitment, strictly governed by schemes and ceiling limits.

It cited Supreme Court jurisprudence confirming this position and emphasizing that courts should not issue directions contrary to established policy.

Although the applicant alleged discrimination and a "pick-and-choose" method, the Tribunal found no specific instance demonstrating that a less meritorious or more financially stable candidate was preferred in violation of prescribed criteria.

The court emphasized that it cannot substitute its assessment for that of a duly constituted committee unless the decision is perverse or contrary to statutory instructions, which was not the case here.

The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made.