The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment, taking into account the educational qualifications acquired and the prolonged administrative delay, ensuring a reasoned decision in accordance with applicable rules.

O R D E R (ORAL)

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying him appointment on compassionate grounds despite the fact that his father, Late Ahamadullah Wani, died in harness while serving as an Instructor in the Department of Handicrafts on 24.11.1990. It is submitted that, as the applicant was a minor at the time of the demise of his father, he became eligible to apply only upon attaining majority in the year 2000, whereupon he immediately submitted his application for compassionate appointment along with all requisite documents.

02. It is further submitted that the respondents processed the applicant's case for over two decades and repeatedly placed it before the Departmental Screening Committee on various occasions, including 26.02.2018, 14.06.2018, 01.10.2020 and 12.08.2021, while consistently assuring the applicant that his case was under active consideration. During the entire period, the respondents neither questioned his eligibility nor raised any objection regarding his educational qualification. According to the applicant, such prolonged consideration of his claim created a legitimate expectation that his case would be favourably considered.

03. Learned counsel further submits that, having received no final decision from the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1558/2021, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2021, directing the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned order within eight weeks. Upon failure of the respondents to comply with the said directions, the applicant initiated contempt proceedings, whereafter the respondents, for the first time, rejected his claim vide order dated 09.05.2023 on the ground of ineligibility.

04. The said order was challenged by the applicant in O.A. No. 453/2023, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 25.03.2025 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's claim in accordance with law, particularly in view of the contention that similarly situated non-matriculate candidates had been granted compassionate appointment. It is submitted that, notwithstanding the aforesaid directions, the respondents again rejected the applicant's claim vide order dated 21.07.2025 on the ground that he was not matriculate, despite the applicant having passed the Secondary School Examination and having placed the requisite certificate before the competent authority.

05. According to the applicant, the respondents, having kept his case pending for more than two decades and having repeatedly represented that it was under active consideration, cannot now deny his claim by raising an objection regarding educational qualification, which was always within their knowledge. It is further submitted that the delay in consideration of the claim is wholly attributable to the respondents and that the applicant's financial circumstances, following the demise of his father, prevented him from pursuing higher education. It is contended that the applicant has now acquired the requisite qualification and, therefore, his claim deserves reconsideration in accordance with law.

06. It is also submitted that the applicant has exhausted all remedies available under law and that no other proceedings involving the same cause of action are pending before any Court or Tribunal.

07. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ends of justice would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and reconsider the applicant's claim, along with the