CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE Vs. S. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P (CAT) is filed challenging the order dated 09-09-2016 in O.A. No.985/2015. The petitioners are respondents 1 to 4 in that Original Application and the respondent was the applicant. The documents are referred to as they are marked before the Tribunal.

(2.) The respondent is the son of one P.P. Sundaram who died-in-harness on 03-02-2011. The application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered by the Department. However, the same was rejected principally on the ground that the respondent had not acquired S.S.L.C qualification and therefore he is not eligible to be considered. Communication in this regard was sent to the applicant on 13-01-2012. It was informed that since the respondent could not be considered for the post of 'MTS', an application can be filed for compassionate appointment of his sister if she is otherwise eligible. The mother of the respondent issued Annexure-A4 communication reiterating the claim for a compassionate appointment for the respondent since her daughter had already been married and was settled in life. The case of the respondent was thereafter considered in November 2012 by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) for appointment to one post of MTS which could be filled up, on the recommendation of the CRC, by candidates who had either failed SSLC examination or had qualifications less than SSLC. Marks or points were awarded to the candidates on various parameters to determine the relative eligibility amongst the candidates. It is the case of the respondent that he had received 44 relative merit points out of 100 in the evaluation by CRC. This is borne out by Annexure-A6 letter. Immediately thereafter the respondent passed the Xth equivalency certificate examination and on this basis the mother of the respondent requested for reconsideration of the matter through Annexure-A8.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that after he passed the qualifying examination, CRC meetings were convened on at least 3 occasions and 23 candidates were recommended for compassionate appointment as MTS. It is his specific case that 17 out of the 23 recommended had less relative merit points than what the respondent had scored when his request was considered by the CRC. This fact is not disputed before us.