Allahabad High Court
HEMANT KUMARversusCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that there was no ground for interference and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner sought a compassionate appointment after his father, a Class‑IV employee, died in 2003. The mother’s application was rejected in 2010 on the basis that vacancy ceilings limited such appointments, and the petitioner’s subsequent writ petition was dismissed, directing him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the petitioner’s case had been considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee, which, constrained by a 5% recruitment ceiling, did not recommend him due to insufficient marks, and dismissed the original application. The petitioner challenged the merit‑scoring and alleged discrimination, but the Court noted no specific evidence of a lower‑merit candidate being favoured and observed that the petition was filed many years after the death, contrary to established precedents. Consequently, the Court found no basis for interference and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the compassionate appointment application on the ground of vacancy ceiling and merit criteria.
- Whether the petitioner established any discrimination or arbitrary selection by the Committee.
- Whether the lapse of time since the father's death bars the claim for compassionate appointment.
- Whether the procedural circulars governing reconsideration of compassionate applications were complied with.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- vacancy ceiling
- merit scoring
- discrimination
- Right to Information Act
- administrative law
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- procedural fairness
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6138 of 2026
Hemant Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad and 4 others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nagendra Kumar Pandey, Vijay
Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pranay Krishna
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 19 February 2026 passed in
Original Application No.462 of 2015 ('O.A.'), whereby the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') has
dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate
appointment.
2. The father of the petitioner, who was working as a Packer (Class-
IV/Group 'D' employee) in the Head Post Office, Bulandshahr, died in
harness on 06.07.2003. The mother of the petitioner made application
seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, on which
information was sought and supplied by the petitioner. After several
reminders, order dated 05.02.2010 rejecting the claim for compassionate
appointment was passed on the ground that vacancies under the
prescribed ceiling limit were limited and it was not possible to make
appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner filed writ petition
which was dismissed on 27.11.2014 with liberty to pursue the remedy
before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner sought the details under the Right to Information Act,
however, no information was made available. Whereafter, the O.A. was
filed.
4. The respondents filed counter affidavit indicating the financial status of
WRIA No. 6138 of 2026
2
family of the deceased and that the application was duly processed after
completion of all formalities and the same was considered in meetings
held on 26.08.2008, 09.12.2009, 10.12.2009 and 16.12.2009 based on
instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training and the Postal
Directorate. It was indicated that compassionate appointment is subject to
the 5 percent ceiling of direct recruitment quota. As many as 431 cases
were placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee ('the Committee')
which could identify candidates for 93 vacancies only within the
permissible 5 percent limit and as the petitioner failed to obtain sufficient
marks, his case was not recommended. The order was duly communicated
to the petitioner.
5. A rejoinder affidavit was filed questioning the marks awarded to the
petitioner.
6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the
case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Committee and though
discrimination and adoption of pick and choose were alleged, nothing was
disclosed in the pleadings regarding selection of a candidate with lesser
merit or greater financial stability and consequently, dismissed the O.A.
7. During course of pendency of the present proceedings, the respondents
were called upon to indicate whether the candidature of the petitioner,
after rejection in 2010, was considered any time subsequent thereto, to
which response was filed that the same was not considered. Whereafter,
the respondents were directed to produce relevant circulars dealing with
the reconsideration, wherein circular of 2022 had been produced to
indicate that for the first time, it was introduced that candidature will be
considered on three consecutive occasions and only on third failure, the
application would be closed. However, prior to the said circular of 2022,
only once the candidature was being considered.
8. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions seeking to
question the award of marks by the Committee. However, as observed by
the Tribunal, nothing substantial or material has been alleged, only
apprehension has been expressed. Besides the same, the petitioner has
failed to claim better merit qua a specific candidate and has further not
WRIA No. 6138 of 2026
3
impleaded any of the candidates who were accorded compassionate
appointment, as party respondent to the O.A. in view of the limited
number of vacancies which could be filled up on compassionate basis and
therefore, the plea sought to be raised in this regard, apparently has no
substance/cannot be examined.
9. The father of the petitioner died in 2003 and the petition, after rejection
of the application, was filed in the year 2010, the O.A. was filed in the
year 2014 and by 2026, 23 years have passed since death of the
petitioner's father and therefore, seeking compassionate appointment at
this distant time, essentially goes against the law laid down in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana : (1994) 4 SCCC 138 and State of
West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219.
10. In view of above discussion, no case for interference is made out in
the petition. The same is therefore, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
September 8, 2026
AHA
Digitally signed by :-
AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…