Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar, JJ
M. Kranthi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No.27309 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.29809 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.S. Jagadeesan
For the Respondents: R. Harishankar

Compassionate appointment is a non-absolute concession rather than a fundamental right. It must be administered strictly according to defined eligibility schemes. Judicial intervention is limited to verifying procedural compliance and is not permitted where a candidate fails to meet objective thresholds set by the authority.

Headnote:(A) Public Services — Equality in employment — Appointment on compassionate grounds — Concept of concession vs. absolute right — Adherence to established departmental schemes — Necessity for eligibility assessment based on specified criteria — Role of judicial review in administrative decisions. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Administrative Law — Scope of interference — Internal policies and scoring systems used to determine applicant eligibility should not be disturbed by courts unless found to be arbitrary or procedurally defective. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
A relative of a deceased employee sought recruitment on compassionate grounds. The employing authority assessed the candidate’s eligibility through an established scoring system designed to rank applicants based on indigenous circumstances, economic need, and various mitigating factors. As the candidate’s score fell below the required threshold for selection, the claim for employment was rejected. The lower adjudicating authority upheld this decision, leading the candidate to challenge the matter before the current forum.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the departmental policy concerning compassionate appointments acts as a limited concession rather than an inherent right. It is a strictly governed process designed to assist eligible families in extreme need, and must comply with constitutional principles of equality. Since the department evaluated the application through its clearly defined points-based criteria and the candidate failed to meet the requisite cut-off, the decision remained legally sound.

Issues: Whether the rejection of a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, stemming from a failure to achieve the mandated threshold in a points-based assessment, warrants interference by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment on compassionate grounds is a privilege that must be administered in strict accordance with the terms of the applicable scheme. The court held that where a candidate is evaluated within the parameters of an established, transparent, and rational scoring mechanism, the court lacks grounds to interfere with the administrative outcome, as the denial is based on an inability to meet the objective eligibility standards set by the authority.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual record of compassionate appointment rejection based on eligibility points. (Para 1 , 2)
2. compassionate appointment is a non-absolute, conditional concession. (Para 3 , 4)
3. judicial endorsement of administrative compliance with scheme criteria. (Para 5)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present Writ Petition has been instituted, challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 03.04.2023 in O.A.No.310/00193/2022. Applicant before CAT is Writ Petitioner herein.

2. Father of writ petitioner Late Manohar was initially appointed on temporary basis in the year 1981 and was made permanent on 01.05.1992. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Telephone Mechanic on 13.02.2003 and due to illness, he died on 20.06.2016. Application was filed by petitioner, claiming appointment on compassionate ground as well as to reimburse medical expenditures incurred by the deceased employee. Department has no objection for clearing medical claim in accordance with the terms and conditions on production of relevant bills and medical documents. With reference to compassionate appointment, Department had assessed the criteria in terms of the Scheme and found that petitioner has been awarded 34 points. Since the petitioner acquired points below the cut off, claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. As far as claim for medical reimbursement is concerned, Department is ready to consider the same on production of relevant records. It is stated that bills in respect of medical reimbursement were already cleared.

3. Claim for compassionate appointment is to be implemented scrupulously duly adhering to the terms and conditions stipulated. Scheme being concession cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Scheme since been violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to be provided only to eligible candidates, who are all falling under the terms of compassionate appointment Scheme.

4. In the present case, as per the Scheme in force in BSNL, points are awarded to applicants, who are all waiting to avail the benefit of compassionate appointment. Petitioner was awarded 34 points, which is not above the cut off point and therefore, Department found that petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. Points are awarded based on the criteria fixed under the Scheme for compassionate appointment and after assessing the indigenous circumstances and mitigating factors as well as number of persons waiting in the queue for compassionate appointment.

5. Considering the above factual position, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by CAT. Consequently, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar, JJM. Kranthi – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentW.P.No.27309 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.29809 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar, JJ
M. Kranthi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No.27309 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.29809 OF 2024