Sandeep K vs The Indian Council Of Agriculture Research (ICAR) & Ors.

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, son of a deceased employee of ICAR-CPCRI who died in service in 2011, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, which rejected his claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds of inordinate delay and his failure to secure sufficient marks in the selection process.

The High Court of Kerala reiterated the settled legal position that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rules of recruitment and is not a vested right. It is intended solely to tide over the sudden financial crisis faced by the family of a deceased government employee at the time of death, and cannot be claimed after the passage of a reasonable period or once the immediate crisis has subsided.

Relying on precedents including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. (2009) 6 SCC 481, the Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the delay of approximately 13 years in approaching the Tribunal was unjustified, and that the petitioner's case had been duly considered on multiple occasions but he failed to secure adequate marks compared to other candidates, and accordingly dismissed the Original Petition.

Catchwords: compassionate appointment · delay · laches · Central Administrative Tribunal · ICAR · OBC · Group-C post · financial crisis · bread-winner · selection criteria · marks-based selection · vested right · service law

Compassionate appointment