JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in this writ petition.The petitioner's father had died while in service in Post and Telegraph department on 27th June, 2000 and petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 17.7.2000. 2. By order dated 23rd February, 2001, the application was rejected by pointing out that the scheme for enlisting a candidate on wait list has been sustained in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Uemsh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., JT 1994(3) SC 525 . it was also considered that only 5% quota of civilian vacancies are available for accommodating the wards of the incumbent dying in service and there being ban on fresh recruitment, no vacancy has occurred for last three years. It was also noticed by the concerned authority that terminal benefits of Rs.1,29.091/- had been given to the family. The applicant holds 10 bighas of agriculture land out of which his income was estimated to be Rs.3000/- per annum. The family of 15 the deceased holds his own house. The family of the deceased has one daughter aged 29 yrs and son of 23 yrs, the applicant's own age stated to be yrs. It was found that there is no indigency in his case and the Committee rejected the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. A representation against the same was dismissed on 1.1.2003. 3. The original application challenging the rejection of the application for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 18.7.2003 agreeing with the conclusions reached by the Competent Authority and also holding that as per decision of the Jabalpur Bench of CAT, a person above the age of 25 yrs cannot be considered to be the dependent on the deceased, therefore, the application was rejected. 4. 4. Having considered the scheme governing the appointment on compassionate grounds; on the demise of an incumbent while in service prevalent in the Post and Telegraph department shows that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not as a matter of course, but depends on evaluating comparative need of number of applicants for which they have provided fair criterion by taking into consideration the family pension, if any, made available to the dependents of deceased, the terminal benefits given to the family, the monthly income from earning from the movable and immovable property held by the dependents, the liability to meet expenses for marriage of daughters, if any, and total number of minor children to be cared for and left over service of the deceased incumbent. After evaluating the comparative indigency providing the comparative need for appointment, the application is to be viewed against the available vacancy. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Committee has fairly applied the criterion laid in the scheme while considering the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and does not found it to be fit case in comparison to others awaiting such appointment to be accommodated for recruitment on compassionate ground directly as an exception to mandate of Article 16. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******