JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 29.2.2002 leaving behind his widow and six sons. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Thakuri Devi moved applications dated 25.3.2000 and 4.5.2000 before the Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow for compassionate appointment. She died in the mean time, during the pendency of her application aforesaid. Thereafter, the petitioner moved representation/application dated 20.3.2001 before the respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer, Air Force, Allahabad for compassionate appointment in place of his father which was rejected vide order dated 6.3.2003 by respondent No. 3. 3. Aggrieved by rejection of his application, he preferred Original Application No. 994 of 2003, Munni Lal v. Union of India and others before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’) which was disposed vide judgment and order dated 19th October, 2006 by the CAT, directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for the vacancies that arose in the years 2004 and 2005, and give appointment if his case is covered under the then existing rules relating to appointment on compassionate ground and that this exercise was to be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. It was also directed that the result of reconsideration of the application be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner again preferred representation dated 7.11.2006 before respondent No. 3 for compassionate appointment which was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2006 by respondent No. 3 on the ground of too low being in the competitive merits i.e. 48 marks only amongst the other deserving candidates. 5. Before noticing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it would be in a fitness of things to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by respondent No. 3 impugned in the present writ petition, as under : “Reference your OA No. 994 of 2003 dated 19th October,2006 V/s UOI and others filed by you in CAT Allahabad Bench and judgment dated 11th October, 2006 delivered by Hon’ble Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. In this connection it is intimated that the above said judgment has been gone through in detail and it has been experienced that you have already been communicated the factual position of the case through this office detailed speaking order No. 95132/SO/134/EIC (2) 06 March, 03 but being out satisfied with the speaking order, you again approached CAT Allahabad and the judgment delivered with a direction to reconsider your case for another two subsequent years. That in this regard, it is clarified that your case has been finally disposed off as per direction of competent authority vide G of I, MOD’s ID No. 19(I)/2000-D/ (Lab) dated 01 October, 2001. The factual position of your case for not considering the case for compassionate appointment being too low competitive merit obtained has been communicated to you vide above mentioned speaking order. As direction of above said judgment, your case has been again reconsidered in pursuance of vacancy for the years 2004 and 2005 but it has been found that no sufficient vacancy was available in the years 2004 and 2005 and you have obtained too low competitive merits i.e. 48 marks only amongst other deserving cases. Hence, your case has been rejected. In this connection it is also clarified that 5% vacancies against deceased quota out of direct recruitment is allotted for whole area of the Central Command i.e. U.P., Bihar and MP and not for a particular area to which the person belongs. All the affected personnel of Central Command are taken into account for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground as a whole and most eligible candidates as per merit as recommended by the Board of Officers are to be considered. From the above it is clarified that your case has been considered as per CAT judgment dated 19th October, 2006 but it has been found that your case did not find as a suitable case based upon too low competitive merits obtained by you. Hence, your case may please be treated as closed finally in view of fair and natural justice.” 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2006 the petitioner preferred Original Application No. 134 of 2007, Munni Lal v. Union of India and others, before the CAT which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.2.2007. Hence, your case may please be treated as closed finally in view of fair and natural justice.” 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2006 the petitioner preferred Original Application No. 134 of 2007, Munni Lal v. Union of India and others, before the CAT which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.2.2007. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 reads thus : “This OA has been filed for job on compassionate ground. Earlier the case of the applicant was considered, but it could not be approved due to paucity of vacancy. Thereafter, the applicant had filed OA No. 994/03 which was decided by the Tribunal on 19.10.2006 with the direction that the application for compassionate job should be reconsidered by the respondents. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered by the respondents alongwith the other pending applications for job on compassionate ground. However, appropriate committee was not able to approve the same and a speaking order dated 22.11.2006 was issued by the respondents in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal. It is this decision which has been challenged by the applicant. On perusal of the order it is seen that on re-considering the case the applicant was found to obtain low competitive marks i.e. 48, whereas there were other candidates who obtained more marks on the scale and in view of the limited vacancy of 5%, the request of the applicant could not be approved. I am of the view that the order is sufficiently reasoned and speaking as the grounds for not approving the applicant’s representation has been clearly stated. There is no infirmity in the said order for which the grounds of this OA are not convincing enough and is dismissed. The OA is accordingly, dismissed. No cost.” 7. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs. There is no infirmity in the said order for which the grounds of this OA are not convincing enough and is dismissed. The OA is accordingly, dismissed. No cost.” 7. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs. “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer, Air Force, Allahabad and the order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the CAT (Anneuxres-9 and 10 to the writ petition); (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974, as class IV employee as earliest ; (iii) Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; and (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No. 3 only on the ground of his low being in competitive merit i.e. 48 marks than other candidates but he has not mentioned in the order dated 22.11.2006 that what is the ground of merit in the compassionate appointment. He contends that the respondents have not disclosed the names of the persons who are said to be deserving candidates in comparison to the petitioner. He also submits that the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 passed by respondent No. 3 and the judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the CAT being illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of law, without considering the facts of the case of the petitioner and without application of mind, are liable to be quashed by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 passed by respondent No. 3 and the judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the CAT, submits that the case of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment had been considered for three consecutive years and it was found that he had got too low competitive merits i.e. 48 marks in comparison to other candidates, hence his name has rightly not been recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. The authority rejected his claim for compassionate appointment also in view of the decision of the Board of Officers due to non-availability of sufficient number of vacancies within 5% quota. 10. He submits that the dependent of the deceased employee is offered appointment on compassionate ground only out of quota prescribed for this purpose which is only 5% of the total direct recruitment vacancy occurring in whole area of the Central Command consisting of the State of U.P., Bihar and M.P. not in a particular area or a Unit to which the dependent of the deceased employee belongs, in a year in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts on the basis of competitive marks. No case is considered individually or Unit-wise/Area-wise. All the cases received from the various Units are considered by the Board of Officers at Head Quarter of the Central Command. The Board of Officers consider various aspects as stipulated in MOD ID No. 19(4)/824-99/1998-D (Lab) dated 9.3.2001 such as family size including age of the children, amount of terminal benefits, amount of family pension, liability in terms of unmarried daughters, minor children, moveable and immoveable properties left by the deceased at the time of his death to find out the cases of acute financial distress/most deserving case in relative merit and recommends only really deserving cases against the clear vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds within the ceiling of 5% Direct Recruitment vacancies. The competitive merits of every applicant is prepared on the aforesaid basis. 11. He next submits that the Board of Officers considered the case of the petitioner for three consecutive years and found that the petitioner had got too low competitive merits i.e. 48 marks as against other applicants and therefore, did not recommend his appointment on compassionate ground and lastly that the deceased’s family has received a sum of Rs. 2,87,503/- as terminal benefits and owned property worth of Rs. 55,000/- at the time of his death and monthly income of his family was Rs. 1000/- which show that the family of the deceased were not facing acute financial hardship after his death, hence it is incorrect to say that the mother of the petitioner died due to hardship of financial crisis. The CAT has rightly dismissed the OA No. 134 of 2007 of the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the CAT. 12. The CAT has rightly dismissed the OA No. 134 of 2007 of the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the CAT. 12. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is apparent that father of the petitioner died in harness on 29.2.2000 leaving behind his widow and six sons. The mother of the petitioner moved applications for compassionate appointment in place of her husband before Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974 but before her application could be considered she died in the mean time. Thereafter, the petitioner moved representation for compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3 which was rejected vide order dated 6th March, 2003 after considering his claim alongwith other candidates observing that more deserving cases were available than vacancies and as such the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not recommended by the Board of Officers. 13. It also appears that the competent authority was of the view that the case of the petitioner did not deserve employment assistance on compassionate grounds as the family of the deceased was not in indigent circumstances; that need for immediate assistance by way of such employment to tide over the emergency and crises was lacking in this case for the reason that the death of the Government servant took place on 29th February, 2000 i.e. three years ago and family of deceased was able to survive for all these years which indicates that family of the deceased was not in indigent circumstances. 14. It also appears from the record that quota prescribed for the purpose of compassionate appointment is only 5% of the total Direct Recruitment vacancy occurring in a year in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts, hence no case is considered individually or unit-wise but all the cases received from various units are considered by the Board of Officers constituted at this Head Quarter as per the Government policy, to find out the most deserving cases in acute financial distress/more indigent in comparison to other similarly placed cases, against the 5% quota of direct recruitment vacancies occurring in a given year. 15. 15. Considering the guidelines of DOP and T and various judgments of the Apex Court that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right and after a balanced and objective/assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case including the decision of the Board of Officers at this Head Quarter the competent authority had rejected the employment assistance to Sri Munni Lal son of late Muneshwar, Mate on compassionate grounds due to non-availability of sufficient number of vacancies within 5% quota. 16. Pursuant to order dated 19.10.2006 in OA No. 994 of 2003, Munni Lal v. Union of India and others, the petitioner again filed an application for compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3 which was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2006 observing that sufficient vacancies were not available in the years 2004 and 2005 under 5% quota for offering compassionate appointment to the petitioner who had obtained too low marks in competitive merits viz-a-viz other deserving cases. It was also clarified that 5% vacancies against deceased quota out of direct recruitment is allotted for whole area of the Central Command i.e. U.P., Bihar and M.P. and not for a particular area to which the person belongs. 17. The CAT has also recorded all these findings in its judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 on basis of pleadings and documents on record. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in the present writ petition, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————