D. Hari Babu vs Union Of India

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent, Chief Engineer, in issuing the proceedings No.10023/HPK/23/E1b(S), dated 28.03.2022 in not selecting the petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment on the death of his father, who died on 16.07.2017 while working in Military Engineering Services (MES) by erroneously stating that due to low in merit the petitioner could not be selected, though the respondents have not conducted any kind of test to the candidate to know the merit, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the pending case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in Military Engineering Services with immediate effect.

It is the case of the petitioner that his father died on 16.07.2017 while in service and he submitted an application seeking to appoint him on compassionate ground to any suitable post to his qualification. Subsequently, he was asked to submit certain documents for fresh consideration and upon submitting certain document as sought by the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and examining the candidature of the petitioner, issued the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 stating that the case of the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment and however, due to low in merit limited number of vacancies his case could not be selected. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

On behalf of the respondents, while denying the averments of the petitioner, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the application of the petitioner, seeking to appoint him on compassionate ground, was forwarded to the appointing authority. To assess the merit of the petitioner to grant appointment on compassionate grounds a 100 point scale is provided in MoD ID Note No.19(3/2009/D(lab), dated 22.01.2010. Accordingly, a Board of Officers was ordered by the Head Quarter, Chief Engineer Southern Command, Pune and a circular was issued on 28.01.2018 regarding scheme for compassionate appointment. The Board of Officers for the year 2018-19 (1st yearly look) have finalised and accordingly the marks secured by the petitioner were 39 and whereas cut of marks for selected last candidate was 55. Due to low in merit and limited number of vacancies available, the petitioner could not be selected and informed the same to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.03.2022. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner died on 16.07.2017 while in service leaving behind his legal heirs. After his death, pension was provided to the unmarried daughter of the deceased and later on, upon her marriage, the said family pension was stopped. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application seeking his appointment on compassionate ground to any suitable post to his qualification as there is no one in the family to earn for survival of the family. Since there was no response from the respondents petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 30.03.2021 demanding the respondents to expedite the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. In response to the said legal notice, the 3rd respondent communicated a letter dated 07.06.2021 to the effect that the application of the petitioner was already forwarded to the Zonal Office and wherein the proceedings were forwarded to the Head Quarters Southern Command Pune, and informed the petitioner that in the ongoing compassionate appointments by the Board for the year 2019 will be considered by the authorities and the case of the petitioner would be considered on priority basis. While so, the 3rd respondent again communicated another letter dated 15.09.2021 asking the petitioner to submit certain documents for fresh consideration of his application and thereupon, the petitioner submitted all the required documents to the respondents. However, the 3rd respondent without conducting any enquiry, interview or examining the candidature of the petitioner issued the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 to the effect that the case of the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment and however, due to low in merit and limited number of vacancies his case could not be selected. In fact, no interview whatsoever was held by the respondents and therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground of low in merit is absolutely false and incorrect and requested to pass appropriate orders.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Solicitor General while reiterating the averments of the counter affidavit submitted that the authorities have followed the guidelines framed in MoD ID Note No.19(3/2009/D(lab), dated 22.01.2010 and accordingly assessed the merit of the petitioner wherein the petitioner secured on 39 marks and the cut of marks for the last selected candidate was 55. Due to low in merit and limited number of vacancies available, the petitioner could not be selected and informed the same to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.03.2022. He further submitted that there was no requirement to conduct any kind of test to the candidate to know his merit and his case would be considered in the next yearly Board.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents and perused the material made available on the record.

The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that his father expired while in service long ago and his case for appointment on compassionate grounds was not considered till date for which, the respondents have submitted that they have some certain guidelines from the Government of India in respect of considering the cases of compassionate appointments and accordingly, they have considered the case of the petitioner and informed the same to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 28.03.2022.

It is not in dispute that the sister of the petitioner was provided with family pension and after her marriage it was stopped. The contention of the petitioner that without conducting of an interview whatsoever, holding that the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground of low in merit is absolutely false and incorrect is not sustainable as the respondents appears to have considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines provided to them by the Government of India. However, it has been categorically held by the 3rd respondent in the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 that the case of the petitioner will be considered in the next yearly board and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the next yearly board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines issued by the respondents, if he is otherwise eligible, in the next yearly board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.