Compassionate appointment rejection upheld when based on merit-point system and lack of vacancies.

The applicant, Balking Ch. Marak, applied for compassionate appointment on February 25, 2011, following the premature death of his father on November 14, 2010.

His case was deferred multiple times from 2011 to 2020 and was ultimately rejected by an order dated December 20, 2021, without stated reasons.

The applicant's case was considered in 2015 and 2017, and he was informed it would be carried forward due to limited vacancies.

The respondents stated that the Circle Relaxation Committee, which met on July 27, 2021, considered 57 cases, recommending 2 for appointment, deferring 20, and rejecting 35, including the applicant's.

They further stated that no Committee meetings were held in 2011-12, 2013-14, 2018-19, and 2020 due to administrative reasons.

Orders based on Committee recommendations were issued for 2015-16 and 2017.

The applicant's case could not be considered within the 5% limit of vacancies available in Group-C posts of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), for which he was eligible.

The respondents clarified that there is no provision requiring them to intimate the reasons for rejection recorded by the relaxation committee.

The applicant cited the case of Smt. Beena Gurung, whose husband died later than his father but was appointed.

The respondents explained that Smt. Beena Gurung scored 93 marks on the relative merit point system versus the applicant's 60 marks, and she was considered for the post of Postal Assistant due to her qualifications, while the applicant was considered only for MTS.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment by the respondents was illegal or irrational?

2. Whether the respondents failed to follow the proper procedure or guidelines in considering the applicant's compassionate appointment request?

The court primarily applied the Scheme for compassionate appointment as per DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998.

This scheme outlines the criteria and procedures for compassionate appointments, including the use of a relative merit point system and the 5% limit on vacancies for Group-C posts.

The court noted that appointments were made in line with this O.M. and based on a checklist prepared according to stipulated criteria, with candidates arrayed in order of merit.

The court found that the applicant's case was duly considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee, along with others, and was rejected on merit.

The respondents adhered to the DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998 and relevant circulars, utilizing a relative merit point system.

The applicant scored 60 marks, significantly lower than other appointed candidates like Smt. Beena Gurung (93 marks).

The court noted that the applicant was only eligible for MTS posts due to his qualifications, whereas Smt. Beena Gurung was eligible for Postal Assistant.

The respondents clarified that there is no requirement to provide reasons for rejection to the candidate.

The delay in holding committee meetings and the subsequent carry-forward of the applicant's case, as well as the limited 5% vacancies, were administrative factors that did not indicate any illegality in the rejection.

The court explicitly stated that the applicant had not pointed out any deficiency or defect in the marking system used.

The court held that the respondent authorities made the compassionate appointment in line with DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998, with the checklist prepared according to stipulated criteria, and candidates arrayed in order of merit for recommendations.

Since the applicant scored fewer marks than others, no case was made out in his favour.

There was no order as to costs.