Compassionate appointment selection turns on comparative merit under uniformly applied criteria.

The applicant’s father, a Postal Assistant, died on 26 September 2016.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment.

The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) considered his case with 56 others against the available vacancies and awarded him 47 merit points.

The cut-off scores were 50 for PA/SA, 50 for Postman, and 48 for MTS, so his case was not selected.

He challenged the marks awarded for his family’s property and gratuity.

The Department relied on affidavits submitted by the applicant’s mother, which valued the house and agricultural land at a total of Rs. 3,27,827.

The applicant relied on a later-produced RTI document stating a lower agricultural-land value.

He did not implead any selected candidate

1. Whether the Department correctly assessed the applicant’s property value and awarded the corresponding merit points under the compassionate-appointment scheme

2. Whether the applicant’s grievance concerning the gratuity amount and comparative assessment justified interference with the CRC’s decision

The Tribunal applied the Department of Posts’ Scheme for Compassionate Appointment—Relative Merit Points and Procedure for Selection, dated 20 January 2010.

Under the scheme, applications are assessed using uniform relative-merit criteria on a 100-point scale, including points determined by the family’s financial circumstances and property value.

The CRC assesses comparative hardship among competing applicants.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited in the order

The Tribunal accepted the property figures in the affidavits submitted to the Department by the applicant’s mother, which placed the total property value at Rs. 3,27,827.

It found the later-produced RTI document unreliable: it referred to “Nanda,” rather than the applicant’s father, and had not been submitted with the original application.

On the figures properly before the Department, the applicant was correctly awarded three property-related points under the scheme.

The Tribunal also held that points were assessed with reference to the quantum of gratuity received, not merely the date on which gratuity rates changed.

It further noted that comparative hardship was assessed against other cases and that the applicant had not joined any successful candidate as a party

It dismissed the Original Application and made no order as to costs