KUMARI KUMUD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS writ application has been filed challenging order dated 29.6.1998, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal contained in annexure 10, whereby application filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the authorities rejecting the prayer for making appointment - on compassionate ground has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners firstly submitted that the authorities were not justified in law in rejecting the appointment of petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground without assigning any reason and on this ground alone, petitioner no.1 may be appointed on compass onate ground. We do not find any substance in this submission. It is true that in the order rejecting the representation, no reason has been assigned, but stand was taken before the Tribunal that son of petitioner no.2 was already under employment as Inspector of Customs and Central Excise. On behalf of the petitioners, no material was produced before the Tribunal to show that her son, Shakti Bhushan, was separate from petitioner no.2.