Compassionate appointment claims cannot be perpetually revisited if merit point criteria are not met.

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

This writ petition has been filed by petitioners challenging the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.225/2022, dated 05.04.2023.

2. Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.C.Samivel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

3. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the first respondent had sought for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father, who was working as a Sub-Postmaster had died while in service and that also his mother, who was working as a Grade-D employee had also died while in service. He would submit that the first respondent had submitted an application immediately on the death of his father and such request was not considered owing to multi various litigations with regard to the appointment under compassionate grounds.

4. He would submit that the matter came to rest pursuant to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and a Scheme for compassionate appointment was made. As per the said Scheme, 5% of the regular vacancies to be filed through direct recruitment was ear marked for granting compassionate appointments. As there were very many number of applications more than 5% of the direct vacancies that arose to be filled up through direct recruitment, a Scheme for providing relative merit points was envisaged and based upon the same, 5% vacancies were to be filled up on compassionate ground.

5. He would submit that the case of the first respondent was considered thrice and on each of the occassions, the relative merit points that was assigned to the first respondent did not meet with the relative merit points scored by the candidates who had been appointed on compassionate grounds and therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment stood rejected. Challenging the order of rejection, the first respondent had approached the Tribunal in which the impugned order had been passed directing the petitioners to place the claim of the first respondent for compassionate appointment in the next Circle Relaxation Committee (hereinafter referred to 'CRC') by holding that the impugned order communicated in the year 2015 and 2020 cannot stand scrutiny without assigning any reasons whatsoever as to how the same fails the test of scrutiny.

6. He would submit that the claim of the first respondent had only been rejected as the relative merit points that he was awarded did not match the merit points of the persons who had been given appointment. He would submit that the case of the first respondent had only been decided on merits and the same had not been appreciated by the Tribunal. He would further submit that there are many number of persons waiting in seniority seeking for compassionate appointment and only when the vacancy for direct recruitment is notifed, 5 % of the such vacancies are earmarked for compassionate appointment and the applications from the repeatedly rejected claimants could not be in perpetuity be taken up for consideration.

7. He would submit that there has been a policy decision taken that if an applicant's claim for compassionate appointment had been considered for 3 times and rejected, the same again should not be recommended for the next CRC. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court on the orders impugned herein.

8. Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent on the other hand would submit that the first respondent's father had died while he was in service as early as in the year 2000 and immediately within the time stipulated he had made an application for compas