Merit-based rejection of initial applicant bars subsequent compassionate appointment claims by other family members.

The husband of Applicant No. 1, Sh. Badri Prasad, died in harness on January 15, 2010, while serving as a Refrigerator Mechanic

In April 2010, the widow applied for a compassionate appointment for her son

After a long period without a definitive result, she submitted a fresh application in June 2018 seeking appointment for her daughter, Applicant No. 2

Following a direction from the Tribunal in a previous litigation (O.A. No. 3134/2019), the respondents issued a speaking order dated February 25, 2021, rejecting the claim on the grounds of a five-year delay and non-availability of vacancies

During the current proceedings, the respondents filed an additional affidavit revealing that the son’s case had been considered for the 2013-14 vacancy year but was rejected because he scored 57 marks against a cutoff of 71

1. Whether the respondents' rejection of the daughter’s claim for compassionate appointment was justified given that the son’s application had previously been considered and rejected on merits

2. Whether the ground of "delay beyond five years" was sustainable when the initial application was filed within three months of the employee's death

Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) vide O.M. dated January 16, 2013, which limits such appointments to 5% of direct recruitment vacancies

principles established in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which clarify that compassionate appointment is not a right but a means to alleviate immediate financial distress

administrative principle that once a family's claim has been adjudicated by considering one eligible member, there is no provision to repeatedly consider other family members for the same benefit

The Tribunal noted that while the impugned speaking order was poorly drafted and failed to mention the prior consideration of the son, the factual records provided via the additional affidavit were conclusive

The son’s merit position was rank 92, whereas the last selected candidate was rank 25; thus, the claim was properly exhausted during the 2013-14 cycle

The court reasoned that once the competent authority had evaluated the family's primary candidate and found him lower in merit compared to other applicants, the "cause" for compassionate appointment was extinguished

Therefore, the widow could not shift the request to her daughter after the son's failure to secure a post on merit

Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to further consideration for the daughter. The O.A. was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of with no order as to costs