Repeated merit-based non-selection does not create a right to compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s father, a Postman, died in service on 26 May 2016.

The applicant’s case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) on five occasions between 2017 and 2021, but was not recommended, principally because of his relative merit and the limited vacancies under the 5% quota.

The Tribunal had earlier directed reconsideration in OA No. 395/2019; the respondents reconsidered the application in 2020 and communicated a reasoned decision.

The applicant filed this OA seeking a declaration of entitlement to three considerations and relief concerning the respondents’ failure to act on his representations.

1. Whether the applicant’s earlier non-recommendations amounted to categorical rejection, such that he was not entitled to further consideration under the Department of Posts memoranda dated 23 March 2022 and 20 July 2023.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to further consideration for compassionate appointment, notwithstanding that his case had already been considered five times.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary requirement of recruitment in public employment in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; it is intended to relieve a family’s financial crisis following an employee’s death in service and is neither a vested right nor an entitlement arising merely from the death of the employee.

The Department of Posts memoranda provide for up to three considerations in specified circumstances and for rejection at the third consideration where the case is not recommended, as described in the judgment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case had been considered five times and that the CRC had not recommended him because his relative merit did not warrant selection in comparison with other applicants and the available vacancies were limited.

It treated the 20 October 2020 proceedings as a clear, reasoned communication of the grounds for non-recommendation, observing that the decision specified the comparative indigence assessment and the limited vacancies.

On that basis, it rejected the applicant’s contention that his case remained eligible for further consideration under the 2022 and 2023 memoranda.

It also relied on the settled principle that compassionate appointment is a limited humanitarian measure, not a right to public employment.

No further consideration or other relief was granted; there was no order as to costs.