JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. The applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the petitioner herein. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the application of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate ground, taking into consideration the scheme for appointment. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: Sri.V.K.Premarajan while working as a Senior Telecom Assistant died in harness on 10.1.2011. The family of late Sri.V.K. Premarajan consisted of his mother Smt.Janu T.; two unmarried sisters-Visalu T. and Pushpa T.; three unmarried brothers-Prakasan T., Suresh T. and Rajesh T.; lastly Smt.Rajila, another unmarried sister, the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Based on the legal heirship certificate and also consent accorded by the other legal heirs, an application for compassionate appointment was preferred. The claim was however rejected by Annexure-A2 finding that the comparative merit of the applicant based on the point system formulated by the BSNL, the application cannot be considered. The grievance of the applicant, as could be seen from paragraph No.13 of the Original Application, is that there is considerable error in granting marks to the applicant while considering the application. Challenging rejection of her claim, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. The respondents appeared and contested the claim stating that the grading granted to the petitioner/applicant was perfectly justified. It was further pointed out that the said Scheme for compassionate appointment was promulgated pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, there is no discretion on the part of the employer to deviate from the Scheme. On consideration of the materials and pleadings on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal by the order impugned dismissed the Original Application finding that the decision has been taken by the BSNL in a transparent manner. 4. We have heard Sri.E.S.Ashraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant and Sri.P.J.Philip, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Sri.Ashraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant, would submit that while granting grading/mark as per the format, which is available under Annexure-R1(b), apparently the BSNL had committed an error in not appreciating the penury of the family consequent to the death of Sri.V.K.Premarajan. He would further submit that though under various heads, the grading granted may appear to be proper, the weightage has not been granted under clause 6.0 of Annexure-R1(b)(Annexure-A4) which provide 10 marks for accommodation. He would further submit that though under various heads, the grading granted may appear to be proper, the weightage has not been granted under clause 6.0 of Annexure-R1(b)(Annexure-A4) which provide 10 marks for accommodation. He would further submit that the applicant had no independent house and the decision by taking into account the property owned by the deceased employee was not justified. Still further, he would point out based on the circular issued by the BSNL that, in appropriate cases, the claim could be reconsidered by the Corporate Office. He relied on clause 5.0 of office memorandum No.273-18/2005-pers.IV dated 27.6.2007 Annexure-A4, to contend that the claim of the applicant should be considered by the Corporate Office in an appropriate manner, and hence, prayed this Court to issue necessary directions in this regard. 6. On the other hand, Sri.P.J.Philip, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the grading system has been formulated by the BSNL to have a uniformity in the matter of selecting applicants, which are eligible for compassionate appointment. The system presently followed would weed out arbitrariness in the manner of selecting candidates for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment. Having put a system in vogue, it is contended by Sri.P.J.Philip that it is not permissible for the employer to deviate from the such system and grant relaxation. He further placed reliance on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Rajesh [ 2015 (2) KLT 478 (F.B.)], in which the Full Bench categorically held that de hors the Scheme no discretion is available for an appointing authority. 7. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar. 8. On a perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with the order, since the same does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or infirmity. The grading system as said earlier, evident from Annexure-A4 clearly prescribes the manner in which applications should be considered and points to be awarded. It is also pertinent to note that in the Scheme of compassionate appointment, the cut off mark is fixed at 55. Unless the case falls within the cut of point of 55, it is ordered that the same shall be treated as non indigent and rejected. It is also pertinent to note that in the Scheme of compassionate appointment, the cut off mark is fixed at 55. Unless the case falls within the cut of point of 55, it is ordered that the same shall be treated as non indigent and rejected. Only cases with 55 or more net points shall be prima facie treated as eligible for consideration by the employer. 9. Viewed in the above perspective, when the employer has stipulated a particular condition and fixed a cut off mark/point to assess eligibility of the candidates seeking compassionate appointment, it is not for the courts to sit in judgment over such wisdom and say that fixation of cut off mark is illegal or arbitrary. In whatever manner the applicant's relative merit is assessed, it falls well below the cut off mark of 55. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that non grant of marks under clause 6.0 of Annexure-R1(b)(Annexure-A4) based on a wrong assumption that the applicant had property held by her is not correct, and hence, it requires re-consideration. However, we are not impressed by the aforesaid argument. 10. It is indisputed that the deceased held landed property and a house. If that be so, no marks could be awarded under clause 6.0 of Annexure-R1(b)(Annexure-A4). Only if as contended by Sri.Ashraf, the entire marks are awarded under clause 6.0, the applicant would cross the threshold of 55 points and become eligible for consideration. 11. Be that as it may, Sri.P.J.Philip, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would, on contrary, contend that even if the entire marks as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is awarded, even then the petitioner will not cross the threshold limit of 55 marks thereby becoming entitled for consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment. 12. When the rival submissions raised across the bar are considered, it becomes clear that there is a severe dispute on the manner in which the marks should be awarded as per the Scheme. It becomes clear that unless and until the marks under clause 6 are added to its entirety, the petitioner cannot become eligible for being considered under compassionate scheme. The decision to grant grading of marks is purely within the domain of the employer. It becomes clear that unless and until the marks under clause 6 are added to its entirety, the petitioner cannot become eligible for being considered under compassionate scheme. The decision to grant grading of marks is purely within the domain of the employer. Unless, it shows that such grant or non granting of marks as per the Scheme formulated is prima facie illegal and arbitrary, this Court cannot interfere in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The employer also cannot be found fault in not granting the marks under clause 6 of the grading system. That being so, the petitioner/applicant does not become eligible because she will not cross the cut off marks prescribed under the Scheme. Viewed in the above perspective, we see no justiciable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.