UNION OF INDIA Vs. ACHAMMA JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.472 of 2008, to consider the claim of the second applicant before the Tribunal for 'compassionate appointment' to the post of Postal Assistant based on Annexure - A10 'Equivalence Certificate' issued by the Director, relying on the Government Order to the effect that the qualification of VHSC will be equivalent to 'Plus 2' level, so as to have claimed such appointment, is under challenge by the respondents before the Tribunal, raising many a ground including that the financial position of the 2nd applicant was considered in detail by the Circle Relaxation Committee(CRC), who took a decision to the effect that he was only to be considered for the post of Group 'D'/Postman and that he was not qualified to be accommodated against the post of 'Postal Assistant'.

(2.) The factual position in relation to the claim is that the husband of the first applicant, i.e. Father of the second applicant was working in the Postal Department , who bid farewell to this world on 16.01.2005. Immediately thereafter, an application for 'compassionate appointment' to the second applicant was submitted; projecting the frustrating pecuniary circumstances. The second respondent in fact had submitted an application both for the post of 'Postal Assistant' and also for the post of 'Postman'. All the relevant particulars as sought for to claim the eligibility for getting compassionate appointment were given then and there. It is also stated that the matter was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee in their meeting held on 22.03.2006 and based on the outcome of the inference/finding, the claim for appointment was rejected as per Annexure A9 dated 18.10.2007, which was subjected to challenge by filing O.A.No.472 of 2008 before the Tribunal.

(3.) The respondents before the Tribunal vehemently opposed the reliefs sought for, mainly contending that the financial status of the 2nd applicant was considered in comparison with the traits/credentials of other eligible candidates and it was accordingly, that a decision was taken rejecting the claim. It was also contended that, as per the relevant recruitment rules, the second applicant could have been considered only against the post of Group 'D'/Postman and not against the post of 'Postal Assistant' as he was not having the qualification of 'Plus 2'. The second applicant's claim was that he had passed VHSC, which was equivalent to 'Plus 2', as ordered by the Government of Kerala. A copy of the 'Equivalence certificate' issued by the Director was also produced as Annexure -A10, wherein a specific reference was made to the relevant Order (G.O.(Rt) No.2700/03/GE. dated 10.07.2003)issued by the Government in this regard.