A claim for compassionate appointment cannot be maintained indefinitely if it fails to meet the merit criteria set forth in multiple evaluations.

(Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the

3^rd respondent /Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 18.04.2023 made in OA/310/00331/2023.

2. Heard Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.L.Parvinbanu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father of the 2^nd respondent, who was working as a Postman, had died in service. An application for Compassionate appointment was originally sought by the first respondent for her elder son. The claim was considered as per the scheme that was introduced, whereunder Relative Merit Point (hereinafter referred to as ‘RMP’) would be given in the carved out percentage of 5% in the vacancies that has to be filled up by direct recruitment to be filled up through compassionate appointment.

4. The claim for compassionate appointment of the elder son of the first respondent was reviewed by Circle Relaxation Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘CRC’) and he was awarded an RMP of 64. Under the compassionate appointment scheme for the year 2012, the first son could not be accommodated, as he had been given an RMP much less than the last of the candidates, who was selected to the post of PA/SA, PM, MTS. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment was again taken up by the CRC in the year 2015 and even then the RMP awarded was less than that of the last selected candidates to the said posts. The claim for compassionate appointment was for the third time placed before the CRC convened in 2019-2020, where again also, the RMP awarded to the elder son of the first respondent was less than the last candidate selected and therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment came to be rejected.

5. After the order of rejection, the first respondent had made an application for compassionate appointment in favour of the second respondent, who is the third son of the deceased and had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, where the Central Administrative Tribunal, without appreciating the above facts, had erred in holding that the claim had been only placed once in the CRC, had directed placement of the claim for compassionate appointment in the next CRC.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is also to be noted that there is no procedure for a requested change of candidates for compassionate appointment, that too in a case, where already rejection has been made for compassionate appointment that arose out of the death of the second respondent’s father. Hence he seeks indulgence of this Court in the order impugned in this writ petition.

7. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, would submit that after the death of the employee, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent, the family had been suffering under penurious conditions. She would submit that originally an application was submitted by the first respondent, seeking for compassionate appointment for her elder son as early as in 2008 and the claim had not been considered by the CRC. In the interregnum, the elder son of the first respondent had expressed his inability to take up responsibilities as he was physically challenged. Thereafter, an application was made