Compassionate appointment upgrade based on qualification must be considered in light of established legal precedents.

The applicant’s father, while serving as a Professor-cum-Chief Scientist at SKUAST-K, died in harness in 2017

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 and was appointed as a Workshop Assistant on 22-08-2017

The applicant, holding a B.Tech degree, contends he was eligible for the post of Junior Engineer (JE) Civil but was appointed to a lower post due to the alleged non-availability of a JE vacancy at that time

He claims he joined the lower post based on an assurance from the respondents that he would be appointed as a JE once a vacancy arose

Subsequently, the applicant was deployed to perform the duties of a JE Civil in 2018, yet his formal representations for appointment to the JE cadre (Pay Level 6) remained undecided

The respondents failed to file a counter-affidavit despite multiple opportunities and a "last and final" warning

Whether the respondents are required to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation for appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) in light of his qualifications and prevailing judicial precedents

The court's directions were guided by the scheme for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994

It further relied upon the legal principles established by the High Court of JK in Irshad Rashid Shah v. U.T. of JK and others (WPC 1819/2023) and Buatesh Singh Isher v. Jal Shakti, UT of JK, alongside the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Piduge Sasi Kanth Reddy Kadapa v. District Judge Kadapa

These precedents generally address the right of a candidate to be considered for a post commensurate with their academic qualifications in compassionate appointment matters.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been performing the duties of a JE Civil on a deployment basis since 2018 due to his B.Tech qualification, which reinforced his claim for formal consideration for that post

Since the respondents failed to contest the claims or file a reply over a period of several months, the Tribunal determined that the matter could be resolved by directing the administrative authorities to discharge their duty of deciding the applicant's pending representation

The Tribunal emphasized that while deciding the representation, the respondents must objectively "appreciate the law laid down" in the precedents cited by the applicant to determine his entitlement and legal standing

The respondents were ordered to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law and the cited judicial precedents within a period of six weeks

The applicant was further directed to provide a set of the relied-upon judgments to the University to facilitate the decision-making process