JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner is the son of late Munshi Ram, who was a Games Peon in the employment of the respondent-University. He died in harness on 21st September, 1997 whereafter his widow Smt. Sudama Devi moved an application for compassionate appointment. 2. The University took a stand that the request of compassionate appointment was rejected on 19.12.1998 keeping in view the criteria as adopted in the Executive Council Resolution No. 490 dated 13.8.1997. 3. The University further took a stand that the University Grants Commission had imposed a ban on such appointments w.e.f. 31st August, 2009, which was ultimately lifted for making compassionate appointments against Group C and D posts on 11.12.2002 subject to rules being framed in this regard. The University framed its Rules for compassionate appointment on 31st May, 2003. 4. Fresh applications were invited in respect of deffered claims and the petitioner came to know about the same through the communication dated 11/12th July 2003. The petitioner moved a fresh application on 29th July, 2003, which was rejected by the University on 5th May, 2004 on the ground that incomplete information has been furnished. The petitioner moved a representation and the same was again rejected by the University on 13.12.2005. 5. These two orders were challenged by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11507 of 2006 (Surendra Prasad Gond v. Union of India and others) and it was contended therein that the orders passed by the University have proceeded on erroneous considerations and against the Regulations framed by the University itself. 6. The writ petition was allowed on 27th November, 2006 and the learned Single Judge recorded that the application moved by the petitioner on 29th July, 2003 might have suffered from an omission to mention certain facts but the same was not intentional and that the petitioner had on the earlier occasion moved his applications detailing therein about the family status of the petitioner. 7. It is undisputed that late Munshi Ram died leaving behind five sons and one daughter. The eldest son Mahatam was employed in a private organization namely Marwari Seva Sangh whereas the second son Gautam Ram was employed in the University. The third and fourth sons namely Paras Nath and Rajendra Prasad had no employment and were engaged in their domestic setups. The petitioner, who is the youngest son, was unemployed and was living with his mother. The third and fourth sons namely Paras Nath and Rajendra Prasad had no employment and were engaged in their domestic setups. The petitioner, who is the youngest son, was unemployed and was living with his mother. Late Munshi Ram had a daughter namely Smt. Sheela Devi, who was already married. 8. The petitioner contends that he was living separately from all his brothers and they did not support him or his mother. His mother was getting family pension and some emoluments have been paid including GPF and other funds, which were distributed amongst the heirs accordingly. The petitioner with the judgment dated 27.11.2006 approached the University for a decision a fresh. 9. The impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 17.3.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner while filling his application form on 29th July, 2003 had concealed material facts with regard to the status of the employment of his brothers and other earning members of the family and this incomplete information dis-entitled him for any such benefit. It was further recorded in the order that the petitioner’s mother was receiving family pension and the amount which had been paid was adequate and sufficient to sustain him and his family. 10. Sri Lalji Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Vice Chancellor has proceeded to pass the impugned order basically on the same grounds which have been negatived by this Court dated 27.11.2006 and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the Proctor had submitted a report on 28.11.2006 with regard to the status of the petitioner and which indicates that the financial status of the petitioner was very weak yet the claim has been rejected and, therefore, the order is perverse. He further submits that the regulations which have been framed to be followed by the Compassionate Appointment Committee and the Appointment Committee have not been appreciated in correct prospective and the claim has been disallowed for no valid reason. He further submits that the destitution of the petitioner and his mother continues in these hard days, which ought to have been taken into account. He further submits that the destitution of the petitioner and his mother continues in these hard days, which ought to have been taken into account. It has been averred in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the ground taken in the rejection order that the benefits after the death of deceased employee has been made available and, therefore, the claim of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Learned counsel submits that in every case of compassionate appointment this factor is available and the successors of the deceased employee do receive certain emoluments hence the same cannot be a ground to reject the claim of compassionate appointment. He further submits that the matter ought to have been placed before the Executive Council in view the delay caused by the respondents and the Vice-Chancellor has only reiterated the earlier stand of the University without envisioning the correct status of the petitioner. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions raised, in my opinion, there is a doctrine of finality, which intervenes with the judgment dated 27th November, 2006. The question of concealment or omission, as the case may be, in the form dated 29th July, 2003 was categorically dealt with in the said judgment where it was found that the petitioner had disclosed all information in the earlier format tendered in the year 1998 and the said documents were available with the University. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to have intentionally withheld any information with a view to gain employment. This issue once decided could not have been reiterated by the Vice-Chancellor as if he was sitting in appeal over the judgment of this Court. 12. The second issue with regard to the adequacy of payments and the destitution of the petitioner had to be judged in the light of the Rules, which was relied upon by the respondents themselves which was made effective w.e.f. 31st May, 2003. The criteria has been clearly laid down that in deserving cases even if there are already earning members in the family, another dependant can be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Executive Council. The criteria has been clearly laid down that in deserving cases even if there are already earning members in the family, another dependant can be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Executive Council. For that, number of dependants, assets and liabilities left by the deceased employee and the income of the earning members separately, the fact that the earning member is residing with the family or the employee and whether he should not be a source of support to the other members of the family is also a criteria to be looked into. 13. The University has further put a caveat in the said Rule that if another member of the family is already in employment and not supporting the other members of the family, caution has to be observed in ascertaining the income distress of the family members in order to avoid any circumvention and misuse of such claims being put forward. This was because the University had to exercise caution to find out that the ground of not receiving support from an employed member of the family may not be taken as an excuse to setup a claim of compassionate appointment. 14. The Rule further provides that an application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. In view of the said provisions which were also discussed in the judgment dated 27.11.2006 and quoted in extenso, the Vice-Chancellor in the impugned order has indicated that consequent to the death of the employee the widow is receiving Rs. 2468/- as monthly family pension and the other emoluments of retirement gratuity, GPF balance and group insurance which approximately spills over a sum of Rs. 2,32,000/-. The said amount was shared between six family members of the deceased. 15. The petitioner is one of those six family members and the Court is amazed on the aforesaid finding as to if the said amount was distributed amongst six members, how the petitioner was able to sustain himself on a meager amount of 1/6th of the aforesaid amount. The impugned order indicates the facts, but fails to objectively assess the adequacy of the said income. Mere statements of facts without assessing the same, in my opinion, is an unreasonable order and fails to objectively consider the request of the petitioner. The impugned order indicates the facts, but fails to objectively assess the adequacy of the said income. Mere statements of facts without assessing the same, in my opinion, is an unreasonable order and fails to objectively consider the request of the petitioner. The aforesaid view taken by me finds support from the report of the Proctor which has also been indicated in the impugned order that the family of the children of the deceased are living separately and that the financial condition of the petitioner is not good. 16. It is not known as to how a converse view has been taken by the Vice-Chancellor moreso without taking any prior approval of the Executive Council as required in the rules formulated by the University in 2003 itself. 17. Thus, on all three counts the impugned order virtually amounts to setting aside the order of the High Court dated 27.11.2006 and proceeds to reiterate its earlier stand, which in my opinion, is not founded on any objective consideration. The impugned order also does not comply with the Rules and does not make the assessment in accordance with the same. 18. The petitioner has already come to this Court on earlier occasions and the matter has been considered by the University on two occasions. The petition relates to an appointment of a Class-IV employee and as such any further harassment to the petitioner would be drowning the cause of compassionate appointment in obscurity. The impugned order is not for valid considerations nor any reasonable approach has been taken and in view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, the legal right of the petitioner for consideration of compassionate appointment has not been dealt with in accordance with Rules. 19. Accordingly, the order dated 17.3.2007 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 20. It is expected that the University shall now reasonably proceed to pass an appropriate order for offering appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis in the light of the observations made hereinabove not later than six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the respondents. —————