JUDGMENT : Shircy V., J. The petitioner who was unsuccessful before the Tribunal (CAT Ernakulam Bench) has filed this petition for implementation of Scheme for her employment in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre without being sponsored through Employment Exchange. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (for short 'VSSC') was established at Thiruvananthapuram after evicting so many people in that locality. A consensus was arrived at between the VSSC and the members of the evicted families that one member from each family, within the first three generations will be provided with suitable employment without being sponsored by Employment Exchange. The grand father and the mother of the petitioner are evictees for establishment of the VSSC. Pursuant to the scheme she approached the authorities seeking employment but, her request was rejected. Though she challenged the said order before Tribunal, (Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench) by filing O.A. No. 180/00637/2015, the application was dismissed on 5.4.2016. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. The controversy involved in the petition arises in the following background : Late Sri. Oliver Fernandez, the grand-father of the petitioner was evicted from his residential plot having an extent of 10 cents for establishment of VSSC under L.A. Case No.97/63. Annexure-A2 is the certificate issued to Late Sri. Oliver Fernandez evidencing acquisition of his land for establishment of VSSC. The property of Mrs. Maria Fernandez, the mother of the petitioner was also acquired by VSSC. Annexure-A3 is the certificate for the same. The petitioner has approached the respondents for employment as per Annexure-A1 Scheme being a member of third generation of her grand- father. The petitioner had passed SSLC in First Class with 73% marks and Annexure-A7 is the Certificate. She has also passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as evident by Annexure-A8 and had undergone Technician Apprentice in Central Power Research Institute as per Annexure-A9 Certificate. But her application (Annexure-A11) dated 29.11.2005 and subsequent representations dated 1.8.2007 and 22.1.2008 in terms of Annexure-A1 were rejected by the VSSC as per Annexure A12. Therefore, she has approached the Tribunal seeking the following relief’s: "1. To direct the respondents to give employment to the applicant under them without any delay. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to give appointment order to applicant under them in terms of Annexure I scheme. 3. Therefore, she has approached the Tribunal seeking the following relief’s: "1. To direct the respondents to give employment to the applicant under them without any delay. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to give appointment order to applicant under them in terms of Annexure I scheme. 3. To declare that the applicant is entitled to get appointment under the respondents. 4. to declare that benefit of Annexure A1 is available to the 3rd generation of all evictees irrespective of whether they were evicted from building or from land alone. 5. To grant such other relief as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 6. To award to the applicant cost of this proceedings." 3. Her claim was resisted by the respondents contending that the Scheme is applicable only for first three generations of the members of the evicted families. The acquisition of the land was done after completing all the formalities. Smt. Maria Fernandez, her mother has not registered for employment either under evicted or affected category. Only an extent of 10 cents in Survey No.2804 was acquired from Smt. Maria Fernandez, D/o Oliver Fernandez and as such she does not come under the evicted category and she was not considered as an evictee as land alone was acquired from her. The persons from whom land alone were acquired were not treated under evicted categories. The petitioner was born on 29.1.1977 and comes under OBC category. So as on 29.1.2015, she was aged 38 years and the maximum age limit prescribed for erstwhile Group D is 25. Even after giving three years relaxation under OBC category she crossed 28 years and she will not come under the group C or D categories. The employment is also subject to the availability of the post and suitability of the candidate. The petitioner has also not submitted documents to prove that she had obtained consent from the other family members. She was appointed on temporary basis through some other agency as Technical Assistant. But that does not entitle her for regular employment in VSSC. So on all these grounds, she was not entitled for an appointment under Annexure-A1 scheme, was the stand taken by the respondents before the Tribunal. 4. She was appointed on temporary basis through some other agency as Technical Assistant. But that does not entitle her for regular employment in VSSC. So on all these grounds, she was not entitled for an appointment under Annexure-A1 scheme, was the stand taken by the respondents before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal accepting the contentions of the respondents rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (Indian Space Research Organization) was established after acquisition of land from the people in that locality. Ext.A1 scheme was formulated by the committee on 3.6.1970 headed by Dr. Vikram A. Sarabhai. It appears that Annexure-A1 Scheme was formulated on sympathetic ground, giving special consideration for employment to the evicted people by incorporating the following stipulation in the Scheme : "Regarding the employment of the evicted personnel, the representatives wanted special consideration to be given not only to the evicted people but all persons in the local area. Chairman ISRO clarified that special consideration can be given only in case of evicted persons, including their descendants falling within 3 generations only, and not to others. The Association representatives suggested a certain percentage of reservations of jobs and guarantee of employment for some categories of personnel." The Scheme further reads as follows: "It was clarified by the Chairman that preference is given only to the unemployed on sympathetic grounds and as such no special consideration would be given to those who are abroad on employed elsewhere. However, their case will be considered on par with others. It was also confirmed that no guarantee of employment to anyone could be given, but preferential consideration to the evicted persons as stated above will be given". 7. The scope of the Scheme was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in O.P(CAT) No. 110 of 2016 in which one of us (P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.) was a member and it was held that the benefits granted for employment to a member of the family of the evictees by by-passing Employment Exchange giving preference to Group C and D posts by satisfying all other requirements cannot be withdrawn or defeated unilaterally by the person who granted it. 8. Sri. Oliver Fernandez was residing in 10 cents comprised in Survey No.2804/6-40 of Attipara Village. 8. Sri. Oliver Fernandez was residing in 10 cents comprised in Survey No.2804/6-40 of Attipara Village. The land with the building situated therein was acquired for establishment/expansion of VSSC under L.A. Case No. 97/1963. Annexure-A2 is the certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities regarding acquisition of the land owned by Sri. Oliver Fernandez (maternal grand-father of the petitioner). Annexure-A3 is the certificate issued with regard to the acquisition of the land owned by Mrs. Maria Fernandez. As per Annexure-A1 Scheme, one member of the family within the first three generations is eligible to be considered for employment in VSSC without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There is no case that any one from the family of Sri. Oliver Fernandez or Mrs. Maria Fernandez had been provided with an employment under A1 scheme. The petitioner, who passed SSLC with 73% marks, secured Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and in other Technical studies, submitted application for employment on 29.11.2005 before the VSSC. Annexure-A11 is the copy of the application thus submitted by her before the authorities. Annexure-A12, dated 19.5.2010 is the reply of VSSC. The relevant portion of Annexure-A12 reads as follows: "On scrutiny of records maintained in this Office it is noticed that your mother was never considered for employment in VSSC under eviction category. It has also been noticed from the Certificate dated 24.4.2007 issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) that land alone was acquired from your mother Smt. Maria Fernandez. Therefore, your name cannot be considered for registering in VSSC as evictee based on the eviction status of your mother." 9. In Annexure-A12 though it was stated that her name cannot be considered for registering in VSSC as evictee, she was advised to submit certain documents enumerated therein. Though she submitted the required documents, she was not provided with an employment in the VSSC. Aggrieved by the same she approached the Tribunal. 10. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the first ground taken by the Tribunal to reject her claim was that, there was no document to convince the authorities that building was also acquired by VSSC along with the 10 cents of property owned by her mother. At the outset, it is to be noted that Annexure-A2 is the certificate dated 4.2.1987, issued by the revenue inspector in favour of Sri. Oliver Fernandez, her grand father. At the outset, it is to be noted that Annexure-A2 is the certificate dated 4.2.1987, issued by the revenue inspector in favour of Sri. Oliver Fernandez, her grand father. It is specifically certified in Annexure A-2 that 10 cents in Survey No. 2804/6-40 with a residential building was acquired by the VSSC. Of course in Annexure A-3 it is not mentioned that any building was there in the property of her mother (Maria Fernandez). But it is significant that she approached the authorities as a member of the third generation of Sri. Oliver Fernandez her grand-father. Moreover Annexure-A1 Scheme does not indicate that only if building is also acquired along with the property, the evictees could enjoy the benefits flowing out of the Scheme. So the finding of the Tribunal that she is not entitled for an employment as a member of the family of the evictee on that ground, is against the true object of Annexure-A1. 11. The Tribunal also accepted the contention of the respondents that she was over aged as she crossed the upper age limit prescribed for employment under the Scheme. Annexure-A7, her SSLC Certificate would show that her date of birth is 29.1.1977. She submitted the application on 29.11.2005 as evident from the records. If that be so, on the date of submission of Annexure-A11 application, she had just completed the age of 28 years. She being a member of OBC, is entitled for age relaxation. Annexure A-11 application dated 29.11.2005 had been received by the VSCC as evident from that document itself. So it could correctly be concluded that she submitted the application seeking employment under Annexure-A1 Scheme on 29.11.2005. Moreover, it is to be noted that she has been working with the VSSC on contract basis and the age limit prescribed for the job engaged by her is 35 years and when three years relaxation is given as the candidate is entitled for reservation, it could only be considered that she had not crossed the age limit. So on that count also it is not possible to conclude that she submitted the application after she crossed the upper age limit prescribed for the particular job. Evidently, she approached the respondents under a scheme introduced as a beneficial measure to the evictees who were thrown out from their only place of abode. So on that count also it is not possible to conclude that she submitted the application after she crossed the upper age limit prescribed for the particular job. Evidently, she approached the respondents under a scheme introduced as a beneficial measure to the evictees who were thrown out from their only place of abode. The object or purport of the scheme was to ensure that the people evicted and forced as homeless are adequately compensated. Then, to such persons a hyper technical approach is not justifiable and it has to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. Hence, in our opinion the finding of the Tribunal that as on 29.1.2015 she had completed 38 years of age and she was over aged, cannot be taken as a ground to reject her application for the reasons mentioned above. 12. Another ground argued by the respondents to reject the claim of this petitioner is that she did not obtain the consent of the other members of her family so as to claim employment to the exclusion of the other beneficiaries, if any. It is to be noted that she had published a notice in Mathrubhumi daily regarding the submission of her application as an evictee and the copy of the same had been produced before the Tribunal as Annexure-A15. In the notice published in the daily it was specifically stated that, she as a member of the last of the three generations of the family of Sri. Oliver Fernandez and daughter of Mrs. Maria Fernandez (evictees) had submitted application seeking employment and anybody having objection in getting her an employment, to contact with registered letter within two weeks from the date of publication. The publication was effected on 11.7.2015. It is relevant to note that the respondents have no case that anyone from the family of the petitioner had approached raising any claim for employment in response to the said advertisement. So the advertisement can be treated as valid consent from her family members and that the other family members have no objection in providing an employment to her. More importantly, in Annexure-A1 Scheme it is not specifically mentioned that consent letters from the members of the family of the applicant have to be produced along with the application seeking employment and no prescribed format is provided in Annexure A1. 13. More importantly, in Annexure-A1 Scheme it is not specifically mentioned that consent letters from the members of the family of the applicant have to be produced along with the application seeking employment and no prescribed format is provided in Annexure A1. 13. Another finding of the Tribunal is that her application is hopelessly barred by limitation as she approached the Tribunal only in the month of November, 2015 though her request was rejected by Annexure A12 on 19/5/2010. It is significant to note that by Annexure A12 she was asked to produce certain documents for consideration. When that be so it can not be treated as rejection of her claim so as to compute the period of limitation from the date of Annexure A12. As mentioned above, it could correctly be presumed that as per Annexure-A1 Scheme the evictees who were evicted from the property acquired for construction of VSSC were given the benefit by taking a sympathetic approach. So no doubt the object of the Scheme has to be fulfilled. The petitioner being the member of the third generation of the evictee family is eligible to seek the benefits flowing out from Annexure-A1 Scheme, if the other conditions are palpable to the authorities. 14. The fact that she had worked on contract basis and is still working there as a contract employee are not valid grounds to reject her claim. So in short, we find that the verdict of the Tribunal has deprived of her right to seek an employment under VSSC as a beneficiary of Annexure A1 scheme. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned order and this Original Petition is allowed directing the respondents to extend the benefits as per Annexure-A1 Scheme to this petitioner also as prayed for and to provide an employment to her after complying with the other conditions of the VSSC, if any, expeditiously at any rate within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment.