MEENA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the Union of India and perused the judgment of the Writ Court by which the writ petition was dismissed and no interference was made with the order of the concerned authorities of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi dated 10.12.2004 informing the appellant that her case for grant of employment in Intelligence Bureau on compassionate grounds was considered but could not be recommended due to non-availability of post.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed before us relevant rules relating to the time limit for compassionate appointment to submit that as per guidelines if it is not possible to allow compassionate appointment in the first year due to non- availability of regular vacancy, the prescribed Committee may review such cases by extending the time limit by one more year at a time to a maximum of three years. It was submitted that in this case, the authorities appeared to have omitted to apply the provisions for extending the time limit for compassionate appointment which would have facilitated the case of the appellant by considering her case against the vacancy of the second and third year also.

(3.) Such submission does not appear to have been made before the Writ Court but in order to appreciate the submission, we went through the records of the case and the writ petition and we find that no such averment has been made either in the writ petition or even in the memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal. The averments in the Letters Patent Appeal relate only to the provisions in the rules or the guidelines permitting extension of time limit upto three considerations but there is no averment that this was not done in the case of the appellant.