ORDER : 1. Petitioners have filed the petition challenging order dated 27.05.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, original application filed by Respondent No. 1 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the original application filed by Respondent No. 1 as the case of Respondent No. 1 had been duly considered by the petitioners for compassionate appointment and had been rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 21/27.08.2012. case of Respondent No. 1 could not be considered for compassionate appointment in the year 2011 as he had not submitted any application in the said year for his consideration for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has opposed the petition and has submitted that father of Respondent No. 1 had died while in service on 17.09.1999 leaving behind his widow, six daughters and two sons. Respondent No. 1, being the eldest son of the deceased, had applied for grant of appointment on compassionate basis on 05.10.1999. However, Respondent No. 1 had not been granted appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2011 because case of Respondent No. 1 was not considered for appointment on compassionate basis, whereas, the persons having less weightage marks were offered appointment on compassionate basis. 4. Late Bhagwan Sahai Sharma was working as Laboratory Assistant with the petitioners at Alwar. Bhagwan Sahai Sharma died while in service on 17.09.1999. Respondent No. 1, being the eldest son of the deceased, sought appointment on compassionate basis and moved an application on 05.10.1999. However, request of Respondent No. 1 was turned down by the Commissioner vide letter dated 21.08.2000. 5. Respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 471/2000 and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2001. Petitioners were directed to consider request of Respondent No. 1 for appointment on compassionate basis against 5% of 53 Group D vacancies available in the department. However, claim of Respondent No. 1 was rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2001. Respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal and his original application was allowed vide order dated 26.11.2002. Order passed by the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in a. writ petition preferred by the present petitioners. 6. However, claim of Respondent No. 1 was rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2001. Respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal and his original application was allowed vide order dated 26.11.2002. Order passed by the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in a. writ petition preferred by the present petitioners. 6. Petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was averred that they have abolished the system of direct recruitment of Group D employees in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan because of outsourcing of certain services. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 14.09.2007. While disposing of the appeal, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “7. Therefore, the decision by CAT as affirmed by the High Court cannot be maintained. However, it is made clear if at any point of time KVS wants to adopt any compassionate appointments scheme and intends to make appointments in Group D posts, the case of the respondent shall be duly considered. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to the eligibility or otherwise of the respondent. That is for KVS to decide.” 7. It was the case of Respondent No. 1 that in September, 2012, he received Memorandum dated 21/27.08.2012 from the petitioners that his case had been considered for appointment on compassionate basis along with other candidates in a meeting held on 07.05.2012, but his claim could not be granted in view of Circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and IT (Department of Post) dated 20.01.2010. 8. In an application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 01.10.2014, it came to his notice that he had secured 37 weightage points, whereas, candidates namely Shri R.N. Amit, Shri Rahul Yadav, Shri Amit Nigam, Shri Dimple Verma, Shri Pradeep Patangia, Shri G. Dheeraj, Shri Kamal Shit, Ms. Kavita Upadhayaya, Shri Nomolesh Daimary, Miss Vaishali Ahirwar and Ms. M. Kavita, who had secured less than 37 weightage points, had been offered appointments. Moreover, case of Respondent No. 1 had not been considered in the year 2011 and the persons, who were having less weightage points, had been given appointments. 9. Kavita Upadhayaya, Shri Nomolesh Daimary, Miss Vaishali Ahirwar and Ms. M. Kavita, who had secured less than 37 weightage points, had been offered appointments. Moreover, case of Respondent No. 1 had not been considered in the year 2011 and the persons, who were having less weightage points, had been given appointments. 9. A perusal of judgment dated 14.09.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows that direction was given to the petitioners that in case at any stage, they wanted to adopt any compassionate appointments scheme in Group D Posts, then case of Respondent No. 1 shall be duly considered. However, case of Respondent No. 1 was not considered in the year 2011. 10. Argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that Respondent No. 1 had not moved any application seeking appointment on compassionate basis is without any basis as Respondent No. 1 had moved an application before the petitioners soon after the death of his father. Rather, direction had been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the case of Respondent No. 1 shall be duly considered as and when the petitioners want to adopt any compassionate appointments scheme vis-à-vis Group D Posts. 11. There is also no dispute that Respondent No. 1 had got 37 weightage points. Admittedly, the candidates at Serial No. 11, 12, 13, 21, 23, 29, 30, 31, 34 and 35, whose names are depicted in the list of candidates and whose cases were considered in the year 2011, had secured less weightage points than Respondent No. 1. Petitioners have taken up the plea that case of Respondent No. 1 was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jaipur on 10.02.2012 and it was received in their office on 21.02.2012 and by that time, meeting on 13.05.2011 had already taken place. Consequently, case of Respondent No. 1 could)not be taken up by the Committee on 13.05.2011. This plea of the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 had been agitating his case immediately after the death of his father in the year 1999 and had approached the Tribunal on two earlier occasions. Consequently, case of Respondent No. 1 could)not be taken up by the Committee on 13.05.2011. This plea of the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 had been agitating his case immediately after the death of his father in the year 1999 and had approached the Tribunal on two earlier occasions. The matter had travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a direction had been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the case of Respondent No. 1 be considered for appointment on compassionate basis in case the petitioners adopt any compassionate appointments scheme vis-à-vis Group D Posts. Hence, the petitioners were liable to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 13.05.2011. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal rightly allowed the original application filed by Respondent No. 1 by directing the petitioners to process the case of Respondent No. 1 for offering him appointment on the post of Sub-Staff (previously classified as Group D Post) and after determining his eligibility to hold the post, to make an offer of appointment to him. 13. No ground for interference is made out. 14. Dismissed. 15. Pending applications stand disposed of.