Court Upholds Rejection Based on Policy, No Res Judicata: Key Points on Compassionate Appointment

The court affirmed that the policy in effect at the time of considering the application for compassionate appointment applies. The petitioner's claim was rejected as his elder brother was already in a government job, rendering him ineligible under the policy. The court clarified that the principle of res judicata did not apply as there was no final adjudication of rights, and the principle of prospective overruling was not invoked. The rejection of the petitioner's application based on the policy in effect at the time of consideration was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the policy for compassionate appointment.
2. Principle of res judicata.
3. Principle of prospective overruling.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the policy for compassionate appointment:
The petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, who was a government employee. The application was initially rejected based on a policy that was in effect at the time of consideration, which stated that if an elder brother of the applicant is already employed in a government job, the applicant is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner argued that the policy in effect at the time of his father's death should apply, as per an earlier court order. The court noted that the Full Bench had clarified that the policy in effect at the time of consideration of the application is applicable, not the policy at the time of death. Consequently, the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's application based on the policy in effect at the time of consideration was upheld.

2. Principle of res judicata:
The petitioner contended that the principle of res judicata applied because the court had previously directed that the policy in effect at the time of his father's death should be considered. The court, however, clarified that for res judicata to apply, there must be a final adjudication of rights. In this case, the earlier court order did not determine the petitioner's right to compassionate appointment but merely directed reconsideration under the then-applicable policy. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply as the right of the petitioner was not finally adjudicated.

3. Principle of prospective overruling:
The court discussed the principle of prospective overruling, which allows a court to declare that a new rule of law will apply only to future cases. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments to emphasize that prospective overruling is generally applied only by the Supreme Court and must be explicitly stated. In this case, the Full Bench's interpretation that the policy at the time of consideration applies was not declared to be prospective. Hence, it was considered to be the law from the inception. The court concluded that the respondents correctly applied the policy in effect at the time of consideration, not the policy at the time of death, and thus, the petitioner's application was rightly rejected.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the policy in effect at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is applicable. The petitioner's claim was rightly rejected as his elder brother was already in a government job, making him ineligible under the applicable policy. The principles of res judicata and prospective overruling did not alter this conclusion.

---