JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Writ Petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure No. 11 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “ the Tribunal “) as also the order dated 1.9.2000 (Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Education Office of the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 5.4.2002(Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) of the respondent No. 2. 2. It is further, prayed that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk in Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan on compassionate basis. 3. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are proceeding to dispose of the Writ Petition at this stage. 5. From the perusal of the record, it has transpired that Smt. Vishna Devi was working as P.R.T. Teacher at the Central School, Air Force Station, Bareilly. The said Smt. Vishna Devi died in harness on 4th April, 2000 due to illness. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the relevant Rules claiming herself to be dependant of the deceased, namely, the said Smt. Vishna Devi. The Application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on three occasions, namely, 1.9.2000, 5.3.2001 and 5.4.2002. The orders passed on 1.9.2000 and 5.4.2002 have been filed as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7, respectively to the Writ Petition. The order dated 5.3.2001 has not been filed with the Writ Petition. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, it appears that the said order dated 5.3.2001 was submitted /filed with the record before the Tribunal. 7. As the prayer for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis was rejected, the petitioner filed an Original Application being Original Application No. 993 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. 8. By its order dated 13.11.2003, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application filed by the petitioner. 9. The present Writ Petition has thereafter been filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 10. We have heard Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Gupta holding brief for Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 9. The present Writ Petition has thereafter been filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 10. We have heard Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Gupta holding brief for Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 11. It is submitted by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the order dated 1.9.2000 was illegal as the concerned authorities of the respondent No. 2 did not consider the question of relaxation from the required minimum qualification as permissible under the relevant Rules. Sri K. Ajit has referred in this regard to an extract of Manual of Swami’s Handbook, 2000, photo-stat copy whereof has been as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition. 12. It is further submitted by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis by the order dated 5.3.2001 was illegal as the petitioner was discriminated as against Smt. P.C. Naithani in regard to her claim for compassionate appointment. 13. As regards the rejection by the said order dated 5.4.2002, it is submitted by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of non-availability of vacancy was not correct as the vacancies were available, and the respondents could have given appointment to the petitioner. 14. In reply, Sri J.P. Gupta holding brief for Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis giving valid reasons. 15. Sri J.P. Gupta holding brief for Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has referred to paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in the Writ Petition wherein, the claim made by the petitioner that her father was physically hand-capped, and was aged about 70 years, was disputed. 16. 15. Sri J.P. Gupta holding brief for Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has referred to paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in the Writ Petition wherein, the claim made by the petitioner that her father was physically hand-capped, and was aged about 70 years, was disputed. 16. In reply to the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner in paragraph No. 10 of the rejoinder-affidavit has averred that the age of the father of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 70 years while the correct age of the father of the petitioner was 57 years. 17. In rejoinder, Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made by him earlier. 18. We have considered the submissions made by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 19. As regards the first submission made by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the order dated 1.9.2000, that the concerned authorities of the respondent No. 2 did not consider the question of relaxation from the required minimum qualification, it is pertinent to note that “knowledge of computer operation” was mentioned as one of the essential qualifications for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk as per the Recruitment Rules referred to paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 20. The Tribunal has further noted that as per the own showing of the petitioner, she did not have the knowledge in computer operation when her case was considered for the first time on 1.9.2002. 21. Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the petitioner did not have the knowledge of computer operation when the application of the petitioner was considered for the first time by the concerned authorities of the respondent No. 2. 22. As regards the question of relaxation from minimum qualification, we are of the opinion that relaxation from minimum qualification cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner. The question of relaxation from required minimum qualification is to be considered by the concerned authorities taking into consideration the relevant aspects including the requirements for the post on which the appointment is to be made. The question of relaxation from required minimum qualification is to be considered by the concerned authorities taking into consideration the relevant aspects including the requirements for the post on which the appointment is to be made. It is evident that the concerned authorities in the present case have considered the fulfilment of the requirement of knowledge of computer operation as essential qualification for functioning on the post of Lower Division Clerk, and therefore, they declined to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of Lower Division Clerk. The concerned authorities evidently did not consider it appropriate to grant relaxation to the petitioner in this regard. 23. As regards the second submission made by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the alleged discrimination against the petitioner vis-a-vis the claim made by Smt. P.C. Naithani, the Tribunal, on perusal of the record produced before it, has observed as under : “Thereafter her case was again considered by the Committee on 5.3.2001 alongwith Mrs. P.C. Naithani and other candidates. Respondents have prepared a detailed list of as many as 70 candidates who had all applied for compassionate appointment and after considering the various factors, the case of Mrs. Naithani was recommended having been found more suitable than the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said by the applicant that her was not considered by the respondents”. 24. It will, thus, be seen that the cases of the petitioner as well as Smt. P.C. Naithani and others were considered, and Smt. P.C Naithani was found more suitable than the petitioner, and therefore, she (Smt. P.C. Naithani) was recommended for compassionate appointment. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any discrimination against the petitioner vis-a-via Smt. P.C. Naithani in regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 25. Coming now to the third submission made by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding availability of vacancies for giving appointment to the petitioner, it is not disputed by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the relevant Rules, compassionate appointment can be made only upto 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies. It is further not disputed by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the relevant Rules, no compassionate appointment can be made if there is no vacancy. 26. It is further not disputed by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the relevant Rules, no compassionate appointment can be made if there is no vacancy. 26. The Tribunal in its order dated 13.11.2003 has dealt with this aspect on perusal of the record before it and has observed as under : “It is further seen that in the proceedings, it was categorically mentioned that there are 111 vacancies of L.D.C. in Kendriyay Vidyalaya Sangthan, out of which 11 vacancies are meant for promotion from Group ‘D’ cadre. Therefore, from amongst 100 vacancies meant for direct recruitment, only 5 vacancies could have been filled by way of compassionate appointment. Out of list of 70 candidates, 36 candidates had applied for the post of L.D.C. and on the basis of recommendation made by the committee, 5 persons were already recommended. Therefore, naturally, applicant being lower in the candidates who were recommended, could not find place in the list of candidates who were recommended for compassionate appointment.” 27. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the above observations made by the Tribunal, and therefore, the third submission made by Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 28. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is noteworthy that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered thrice and was rejected giving valid reasons. 29. It is also to be noted that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Reference in this regard may made to the following decisions : 1. State Bank of Haryana and another v. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 (Paras 6 and 9) : (2003)7 SCC 704 (Paras 6 & 9). 2. State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 (Paras 7 & 10). 3. State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, AIR 2007 SC (Suppl.) 414 (Para 16) : (2007) 9 SCC 571 (Para 16). 4. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das and others, AIR 2009 SC 1153 (para 14) : (2008) 15 SCC 560 (Para 15). 5. Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P and others, (2009) 6 SCC 481 (Paras 11 & 12). 30. 4. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das and others, AIR 2009 SC 1153 (para 14) : (2008) 15 SCC 560 (Para 15). 5. Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P and others, (2009) 6 SCC 481 (Paras 11 & 12). 30. In view of the above, the Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 31. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 32. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost. —————