### Non-disclosure of merit-point breakdown in compassionate appointment rejection renders order non-speaking and non-transparent.

The applicant’s father, Late Arun Kumar Nigam, died in harness on February 25, 2019, while serving as an Administrative Officer under the Ministry of Defence

The applicant, being the deceased’s unmarried and dependent daughter, applied for compassionate appointment in 2019

The Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) considered her case in 2023 but rejected it via an order dated March 14, 2023, citing limited vacancies and the applicant's assessment of 34 merit points

The applicant challenged this rejection, contending that the order was non-speaking because it failed to disclose the vacancy count, the list of candidates considered, or the breakdown of the merit points

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 14, 2023, was passed in a transparent and reasoned manner in accordance with the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the lack of disclosure regarding the merit point breakdown and the CAC report renders the decision-making process arbitrary

The court primarily applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated January 16, 2013, which restricts compassionate appointments to 5% of direct recruitment vacancies

It further relied on the legal principle that while compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, any administrative decision regarding it must be transparent and provide an objective assessment based on prescribed merit criteria and attributes

The court underscored the principle of natural justice, requiring that the basis for rejection (such as the CAC report or merit point calculation) must be disclosed to ensure the process is non-arbitrary

The Tribunal found that while the respondents assessed the applicant at 34 merit points, the impugned order was "non-speaking" because it failed to provide the specific breakdown of marks under different heads

The court observed that the respondents failed to bring the CAC report or recommendations on record or supply them to the applicant, which prevented the applicant from understanding why other candidates were deemed more deserving

Furthermore, despite the respondents citing "financial crisis" and "delay" guidelines, they recorded no specific findings of delay against the applicant, who had applied promptly in 2019

The court concluded that this lack of transparency violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the decision-making process arbitrary and non-transparent

The Tribunal quashed the order dated March 14, 2023, and directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case. The respondents were ordered to place her application before the next CAC meeting for a fresh assessment strictly per applicable guidelines and communicate the outcome to the applicant within six months. The Original Application was partly allowed with no order as to costs