Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1303 (JHR)

Nishi Kant Gupta v. Union of India

2013-12-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.BANUMATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed in O.A. No. 173 of 2008(R)dated 26.10.2010 as well as the order passed in R.A. No.23 of 2011(R) dated 11.4.2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the prayer of the petitioner seeking benefit of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was serving in the office of 2nd respondent, who died on 28.10.2005 in harness. Thereafter mother of the petitioner immediately applied for the benefit of compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The respondent-authority vide letter dated 31.8.2007 asked the petitioner to appear in interview along with all documents and pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared in interview. 3. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner was considered along with four other candidates by the Committee Members on the basis of five factors, namely, family pension, terminal benefits given, possession of immovable property, number of minor sons and unmarried daughters and left over service of the deceased employee. As per the said parameters for giving the benefit of compassionate appointment, certain marks were being alloted and the petitioner was awarded 16 marks which were lowest in comparison to other three candidates, who have secured 36,45 and 65. According to the respondent, the petitioner got the lowest marks out of four candidates, therefore only two candidates who secured the highest marks have been selected for the employment, subject to the availability of 5% vacancies as per Department of Personnel & Training Order F.No.14014/6/95Estt. (D) dated 26th September, 1995. 4. The petitioner filed the review application for quashing the order dated 26.10.2010 passed in O.A. No.173 of 2008, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 11.4.2011, whereby prayer of the petitioner for the benefit of compassionate appointment was rejected. 5. Mr. A.Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that while awarding marks, the Committee Members have taken into consideration only three dependents, including the mother, the petitioner and the younger brother of the petitioner and the Committee Members have not taken into consideration the another dependent, who is maternal grand daughter/niece of the petitioner who is fully dependent on the petitioner's mother and the pension earned by her. Learned counsel submitted that the parents of the petitioner had three children, namely, the petitioner, younger brother and another one daughter. Learned counsel submitted that the parents of the petitioner had three children, namely, the petitioner, younger brother and another one daughter. Thus, it is stated that the said daughter who was given in marriage had given birth to a daughter and thereafter she died. It is further stated that immediately after the death of the petitioner's sister, his brother-in-law (husband of the petitioner's sister) also committed suicide, resultantly the daughter of the petitioner's sister was to be taken care of by the petitioner's family members and this aspect could not be placed before the Committee Members and, therefore, the Committee Members have not taken into consideration the said aspect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's younger brother, though aged 30 years, is not earning any income and is fully dependent on the petitioner's mother and this was not considered by the Committee Members. Learned counsel also submitted that as against the possession of moveable and immoveable properties, the Committee Members have taken into consideration that petitioner's family owned 10 katha of land and awarded only zero marks. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said 10 katha land owned by the petitioner's family is not fetching any income and the said land is remained barren land and, therefore, under the category of possession of immoveable property, marks ought to have been allotted by the Committee Members. 6. We have heard Mr.A.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondents. Drawing our attention to the aforesaid five parameters, which are taken into consideration for compassionate appointment, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the scheme is mainly intended to give appointment to the poorest of the poor and grown up young brother and niece of the petitioner cannot be said to be dependent on the petitioner's family, so as to award marks for that and, therefore, awarding of marks by the Committee Members cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Committee Members along with other candidates and those who secured higher marks, have been selected for the employment. Learned counsel further submitted that seeking the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment to claim the appointment as a matter of right and, therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that seeking the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment to claim the appointment as a matter of right and, therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. We have heard Mr.A.Khan, counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.M.Khan, counsel for the Union of India. 8. While awarding marks, the Committee Members had taken into consideration only three dependents, namely, the petitioner, the mother and the petitioner's younger brother. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the maternal grand daughter, who has lost her mother and father, is now totally dependent upon the petitioner's family. It is also stated that the daughter of the petitioner's sister is now aged 21 years and unemployed and her marriage has to be performed for which she is dependent upon the family of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this aspect could not be placed before the Committee Members earlier and, therefore prayed for allowing of the writ petition. 9. In the matter of compassionate appointment, there cannot be a positive direction to the authority to issue the order of appointment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the important aspects could not be placed before the Committee and if those matter could have been placed before the Committee, perhaps the petitioner might have scored more marks. 10. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the new ground now placed in this appeal, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered in the light of new ground, which has been urged before this Court. 11. The order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 173 of 2008(R)dated 26.10.2010 and order passed in R.A. No.23 of 2011(R) dated 11.4.2011 are set aside and this writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the future vacancies, in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent is also directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to place all the materials before him.