Mukesh Kumar Das vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant being aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A. No. 051/00245/2016 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at

Ranchi vide order dated 16.01.2017, seeking quashing of the order of rejection of compassionate appointment dated 21.05.2015 communicated vide

letter dated 03.07.2015, has preferred this writ petition.

The issue in narrow compass has been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in the following manner:-

“The applicant is claiming for compassionate appointment and seeks quashing of the order dated 21.05.2015 communicated vide letter

dated 03.07.2015 [Annexure-A/11] wherein the respondents have rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that his case has already

been considered five times but could not find place amongst the most deserving candidates to the extent of available vacancies.

Going through the application, it is apparent that the father of the applicant died on 24.08.2009. After which his mother had filed

application on 13.04.2010 for grant of compassionate appointment in his favour as the deceased employee died leaving behind a widow,

two sons and one married daughter. The applicant has also annexed the previous rejection order dated 24.05.2011 [Annexure-A/5] and

17.07.2013 [Annexure-A/7]. On going through the enclosed list of 2012 it is noted that the name of the applicant was at Sl. No.30 in the list

containing 73 persons. Likewise, in the list of 2013, the name of the applicant was at Sl.No.19 in the list of 59 candidates. Now by the

impugned order dated 21.05.2015, the respondents have clarified that they have rejected the cases of the applicants who have been

considered five times or 5 years old, as they could not find place in the list of deserving candidates, either in view of non availability of

vacancies or more deserving persons listed above.

Since the Department has considered the case of the applicant on several occasions, no fault can be found in their action calling for

interference. Things cannot run in perpetuity as the father of the applicant died way back in the year 2009 and the family survived all these

years, it may be legitimately considered that there is no urgency. Since the case of the applicant has received due consideration along with

others, and cases of 24 persons have been rejected under the same order it cannot be a case of discrimination calling for interference.

Hence the OA is dismissed having no merit. No costs.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected on arbitrary grounds. Proper evaluation

of the claim as per the defined yardstick have not been made. Learned Tribunal should have accorded sympathetic consideration since the father of

the applicant had died on 24.08.2009 in harness.

Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India has opposed the prayer. He submits that applicant’s claim was considered as per the

uniform defined criteria on five occasions, one after the other on applications made for reconsideration. The previous orders of rejection dated

24.05.2011 and 17.07.2017 etc. were not challenged. Learned Tribunal has found that the applicant’s name was at serial no. 30 in the list

containing 73 persons, whereas in the list of 2013 his name was at serial no.19 in the list containing 59 candidates. Moreover, the claim had become

stale due to non-availability of the vacancies or more deserving persons listed above. The applicant has not been able to make out a case for any

further reconsideration. The order of the learned Tribunal has taken note of the relevant material facts including the order of rejection and rightly

declined relief to the applicant.

We have given anxious consideration to the plea raised by the petitioner and also taken into account the attendant relevant material facts borne

from record. In the matter of compassionate appointment, vacancies are limited for a particular year out of the total post in the cadre i.e., 5%. The

respondents have devised a scheme for evaluation of the rival claims on objective criteria. Applicant’s claim was considered four times earlier to

the last order of rejection and each time he did not find place amongst the candidates falling within the vacancies for that year against the quota of

compassionate appointment. As is apparent, in the year 2012 his name appeared at serial no.30 in the list of 73 persons whereas in the year 2013 he

appeared at serial no. 19 amongst 59 candidates. Applicant has not been able to show that he had a better claim then the other candidates above in the

list. Moreover, the earlier orders of rejection were also not challenged. By the time applicant approached this Court, the matter had become stale.

Taking all these factors in totality, learned Tribunal did not find any grounds to interfere in the matter. We find that the petitioner has not been able

to improve his case any further at this stage. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned CAT.

The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.