Sarun Nisha And Ors vs Director General And Ors

As in terms of DoPT OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013, the applicant is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment for any number of times, as there is no limit for the same, the MA No. 1610/2018 for condonation of delay is allowed.

The applicants have filed the present OA, seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) That this Hon"ble Tribunal, may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities that they immediately considered the case of compassionate appointment of Applicant No. 2, without its consideration by the appropriate Board of Officers/Scrutiny Committee - authorized to recommend compassionate appointment.

(b) That despite availability of sufficient vacancies of Group "C" in almost all the offices under Administrative control of respondent authorities, the applicant was not considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, against the same despite his eligibility and fitness for Group "C" post, and given so many out of turn compassionate appointment to another persons on Pick & Choose Basis (Annexure A-4).

(c) Allow any other and further relief which thism Hon"ble Tribunal, may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in order to safe-guard the interest of justice;

(d) Allow costs of this Application in favour of the humble applicants."

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is noticed that for the last many dates, i..e, 11.10.2018, 04.12.2018, 06.03.2019, 01.05.2019, 02.08.2019 and 17.09.2019, this matter had been adjourned either on the request of proxy counsel for the applicant or for non appearance of the applicant. Even today, nobody appears for the applicant even in the revised call. Hence, we are constrained to proceed with this matter under Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

It is the case of the applicants that the husband of the applicant no.1, while working on the post of Ex.Programme Executive, AIR, Obra-Sonebhadra, had died in harness on 22.11.2002, leaving family in very indigent circumstances. Ultimately, applicant no.1 made an application dated 04.12.2002, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her son, who is applicant no.2 herein and who had passed Intermediate Exam. The applicant has alleged that more than 15 years had passed, the respondents have not given appointment to the applicant no.2 on compassionate basis till date and have appointed others on "pick" and "choose" basis. The applicants have thus submitted that this inaction of the respondents is discrimination against them and also violate the rules of Scheme of Compassionate Appointments Committee. Being aggrieved with this inaction of the respondents, the applicants had served legal notice dated 02.01.2018 on the respondents with the request to consider the applicant no.2 for appointment on compassionate basis to the post of Group "C" immediately but to no avail, as the respondents have not considered their case. Hence, the present OA.

In reply to the above, the respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit (CA) in which they have been able to show that they have devised grading points by formulating Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for consideration of compassionate appointment cases in Prasar Bharati in view of procedures and instructions as contained in DOPT OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013.

The respondents have also been able to show from their CA that the case of the applicant no.2 for the compassionate appointment had already been considered five times by the Departmental Screening Committee in the years 2004, 2006, 2007, 2014 and 2016 respectively as per availability of vacancies under 5% quota for compassionate appointment cases, as is evident from copy of the minutes of meeting placed at Annexure R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4, but his case could not be recommended as the marks obtained by him as per the Standard Operating Procedure were well below the marks of the recommended candidates.

The respondents in their CA have admitted that the case of the applicant will be considered as per the DoP&T"s OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013 as per the availability of vacancies for compassionate appointment.

From the above and on perusal of Annexures R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 (colly.) enclosed with the CA, it is clear that the cases of all the Prasar Bharti employees, including the applicant herein for the vacancy years 2004, 2006, 2007, 2014 and 2016 on compassionate grounds have been duly considered as per Standard Operating Procedure by the said Screening Committee and the considerations thereof. We also find on record the considerations taken place in the screening committee meetings of 15.01.2004 (1st time), 25.06.2006 (2nd time), 19.12.2007 (3rd time), fourth time in the year 2014 and 05.08.2016 (5th time) where the case of the candidates, including the applicant no.2 had been considered and only the candidates who had scored higher marks as against the number of vacancies available were recommended for appointment on compassionate basis. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in consideration of the cases for compassionate appointment and as such, cannot interfere with the orders of the respondents. We also note that it is not open for the Tribunal to assess and give the points on the basis of the details provided by the applicants, as it is the exclusively prerogative of the respondents to assess the eligibility of the applicants and accordingly award the points on the basis of the details provided by them. In the case of Nanak Chand v. Delhi Jal Board, 2007(140)DLT 489, the Hon"ble High Court clearly held as under:-

"14. The mandate of the Supreme Court is very clear from the aforestated judgments that it is not for the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision arrived at by the competent authority while considering the eligibility of an applicant for appointment on compassionate basis and all it can do is to see whether the decision of the competent authority is vitiated. Having scrutinized the cases in hand in the aforesaid background, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the findings of facts and the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority."

However, in view of the submissions of the respondents that case of the applicant will be considered in terms of the DoP&T"s OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013 as per the availability of vacancies for compassionate appointment, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant no.2 for compassionate appointment in the meeting of the Screening Committee as per the availability of vacancies meant for compassionate appointment in terms of the aforesaid DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013 and inform the concerned party about the decision taken by the Compassionate Appointments Committee thereafter.

With the above directions, the OA is dismissed. No costs.