JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.7.2002 in O.A. No. 195/2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Under this order, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner in limine. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the father of the petitioner, late Shri Chhotu Lal was in service of the respondent as Sorting Assistant. He died while in service on 10.2.2001. The mother of the petitioner moved an application on 23.3.2001 (annexure-2) to the respondent No. 2 praying therein to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. This request came to be rejected by the respondent vide order dated 28.9.2001 (annexure-3). That order of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. As said earlier under the impugned order (annexure-5) the original application came to be rejected in limine by the tribunal. Thus, this writ petition. 3. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tribunal has committed a serious illegality, even not to consider it to be a fit case to call upon the respondents to file the reply to the original application filed by the petitioner. In his submission, the tribunal erred in rejecting the original application of the petitioner in limine. 4. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner her mother submitted an application praying for giving the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. As none of the members of the family in the employment, the petitioner should have been given appointment on the compassionate ground. 5. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the application of the mother of the petitioner filed for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been rejected on extraneous and irrelevant considerations. 6. Lastly, it is urged that while considering an application of the dependant of deceased Government servant died in harness to give compassionate appointment to him, the family pension and the amount of retiral benefits got by the family would be irrelevant and extraneous consideration. 7. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also carefully gone through the order of the tribunal, the writ petition and its enclosures. 7. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also carefully gone through the order of the tribunal, the writ petition and its enclosures. 8. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision from Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 or the Rules framed thereunder which bars the tribunal to dismiss the original application in limine. In the Act or the Rules framed thereunder the tribunal is within its competence to dismiss the original application in limine, if it is devoid of any substance and merits. The provision for dismissal of original application in limine is otherwise also called for so that unnecessary, frivolous and baseless litigation may not come before the tribunal. Looking to the increasing graph of pendency of the cases in the tribunals and the Courts, it is utmost necessary that there may be a check at the stage of admission of the matters. As a rule the matters, though have no merits, if are admitted, it may adversely affect the disposal of old pending matters. The learned tribunal after detailed discussion and on being satisfied that the petitioner has no case whatsoever in his favour on merits, dismissed his application in limine. We endorse this approach of the tribunal that where applicant has no case 5 on merits, no useful purpose will be served by giving notices to other side and prolonging the case. 9. From the application Annexure-2, filed by the mother of the petitioner prayed therein for giving the petitioner compassionate appointment, we find that he was aged of 27 years and 8 months on the date of filing thereof. It is 11 not in dispute that the petitioner is married and have this status on the date of the application. Looking to his age, the qualifications possessed and status of the family to which he belongs, there is all the possibility he would have been in the gainful employment. The mother of the petitioner very conveniently not disclosed as to what her second son is doing. The petitioner has not stated on oath before the tribunal that he is unemployed. The petitioner is married and possibly he may have one or two kids also looking to his age. Otherwise also he cannot be taken to be dependent on the father. 10. The petitioner has not stated on oath before the tribunal that he is unemployed. The petitioner is married and possibly he may have one or two kids also looking to his age. Otherwise also he cannot be taken to be dependent on the father. 10. As per the relevant rules of compassionate appointment referred in the judgment by the tribunal, such appointment is permissible only against 2 the five percent of vacancies under the direct recruitment quota. This scheme of compassionate appointment framed by DOPT is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to this restriction put in the rules of appointments on compassionate ground not to exceed five percent of vacancies under direct recruitment quota, we are satisfied that such 2 appointment is permissible only in very deserving cases. Looking to this scheme of the compassionate appointment framed by DOPT the member of the family of the deceased employee in each and every case cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground. 11. From annexure-3 we find that because of the ban imposed on the 3 direct recruitment and extension of age limit of retirement from 58 years to 60 years, there has been literally no vacancy since last three years. This factual averment made in the order annexure-3 is not controverted or disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Not only this in the order (annexure-3) an another important fact has been noticed that the candidates on waiting list 3 are waiting for appointment since 1996. This factual averment in the order (annexure- 3) is also not controverted by the petitioner. This waiting list could not be exhausted though more than six years have already been passed, no useful purpose, otherwise would have been served to add more name in this list. The waiting list otherwise also is not called for keeping in view the object 1 and purpose for which the compassionate appointments are to be provided. In case immediately financial assistance by appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided, there is no use and purpose to keep names of these persons in the waiting list. The compassionate appointment can only be given in case the post is vacant. To provide this appointment, it is not obligatory upon the appointing authority to create any regular or supernumerary post. 12. The compassionate appointment can only be given in case the post is vacant. To provide this appointment, it is not obligatory upon the appointing authority to create any regular or supernumerary post. 12. The very object and purpose to provide immediately financial assistance is defeated, if immediate appointment is not given. Where since 1996 this category of the candidates are waiting for the compassionate appointment, where the question does arise to give appointment to the petitioner. The appointment on the compassionate ground broadly speaking is contrary to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, but having the socio-economic approach, it is taken to be a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the citizen and that is how the departments are framing or having there rules or regulations or standing order or instructions or circular for the compassionate appointment. 13. From the scheme of the rules or regulations or standing orders or circular or instructions the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not the rule that the dependent of the deceased Government employee died while in service is to be given appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of course, rule or right. 14. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held:- "As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved but in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved but in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking Into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rule to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased." 15. In this very judgment the Apex Court has given out the factors necessary for being taken before offering an appointment on compassionate ground. The Court has observed:- "Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is In consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change In the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 16. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar (1994) 2 SCC 718 ) , the Apex Court speaking for scope of the High Courts and Tribunals to order for compassionate appointment held:- "The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction Impelled by sympathetic consideration. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar (1994) 2 SCC 718 ) , the Apex Court speaking for scope of the High Courts and Tribunals to order for compassionate appointment held:- "The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction Impelled by sympathetic consideration. The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, should never be done. In the very case itself, there are regulations and instructions governing the matter. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of relevant statutory provisions. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. Moreover, the High Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. No mandamus should be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law." 17. In the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301 , the Apex Court held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who died in harness is to relieve unexpected Immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. 18. Giving out the circumstances, negativing the necessity of compassionate appointment in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 476 ) , the Apex Court held:- "In the instant case, the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted long ago. At the time the railway servant died there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. At the time the railway servant died there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, it must be held that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable." 19. In the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai (1996) 6 SCC 394 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court to consider the candidature of the dependent of deceased employee and to give the compassionate appointment to him/her by creating a supernumerary post to be improper. The fact of the case was that the dependent of the deceased employee applied for the compassionate appointment at the time when there was no vacancy and a ban on fresh recruitment was In operation as there was surplus labour, the work force was being reduced and incentives were being offered for voluntary retirement. 20. In the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar (1996) 4 SCC 560 , the Apex Court held: "In the absence of a vacancy It Is not open to the Corporation to appoint a person to any post. It will be a gross abuse of the powers of a public authority to appoint persons when vacancies are not available. If persons are so appointed and paid salaries, It will be a mere misuse of public funds, which is totally unauthorised. Normally, even if the Tribunal finds that a person is qualified to be appointed to a post under the kith and kin policy, the Tribunal should only give a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the case of the particular applicant, in the light of the relevant rules and subject to the availability of the post. It is not open to the Tribunal either to direct the authorities concerned to create a supernumerary post and then appoint a person to such a post." 21. It is not open to the Tribunal either to direct the authorities concerned to create a supernumerary post and then appoint a person to such a post." 21. In the case of MMTC Ltd. v. Pramoda Dei (1997) 11 SCC 390 , the Apex Court held that object of the compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is further held that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment. 22. Reiterating the object and purpose of compassionate appointment the Apex Court observed that the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 23. In the case of Orissa State Electricity Board v. Raj Kumari Panda 1999 SCC (L&S) 729 , the Apex Court held that the other conditions precedent for the compassionate appointment is that it can be given only when vacancies exist and not otherwise. 24. In the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Dannina Rajeswari 1999 SCC (L&S) 1182 , the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment can be granted only if clear vacancy exists. 25. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment, the Apex Court held that it is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. (See AIR 2000 SC 2782 Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar ). 26. Thus starting from the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (supra), it is clear that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the Public Authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of deceased, and where it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the Public Authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of deceased, and where it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. 27. The provision of giving appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule of the recruitment has been carved out in the interest of justice and to meet the certain contingencies where the deceased Government servant left his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, in such cases out of pure humanitarian consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a dependent is given the employment. 28. In this case, we find that the vacancy/post was not available. The right of consideration for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner has not been denied. His case has been considered, but it was not found that due to the death of the father of the petitioner the family is unable to tide over the sudden crisis or distress. 29. Looking to the rule of the department for the compassionate appointment, we are satisfied in the facts of this case; the widow was getting the family pension in the sum of Rs. 4,000/-, the widow got Rs. 4,29,743/- towards the service benefits on the death of her husband, the family has its own premises for residence, in the family no minor member is there, the widow is to only incur the expenses of marriage of her two sons and the expenses of education of one son, the petitioner is a married son, second son is also major and it is not a case of the petitioner that he is not in gainful employment, the deceased has not left unmarried minor or major daughter behind him, dependents of deceased employees are waiting for compassionate appointment since 1996 and the compassionate appointment is permissible only against 5% of direct recruitment quota, the respondents are perfectly legal and justified not to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 30. 30. The respondents No. 1 and 2 declined to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the condition of the family of the deceased does not appear to be indigent requiring immediate financial relief. We find sufficient justification in the approach of the respondents No. 1 and 2 that no heavy liability except marriage of two sons and education of one son is there in the family. We do not find any perversity or impropriety in the approach of the respondent No. 1 and 2 that one of son can contribute towards the earning of the family and also looking to the fact that the petitioner is married and aged of about 28 years certainly he would have been contributing towards the earning of the family. 31. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******