VICKY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts, in bare minimum, are that the father of the writ petitioner, Rampal Barber was enrolled in the Army on 10.1.1984 and died in harness on 10.12.2007 leaving behind his wife Smt.Urmila Devi, son Vicky Kumar Sain (petitioner) and other children. The deceased, at the relevant time, was serving at Unit 188 Fd Wksp, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, his mother thereafter applied for compassionate appointment in his favour, and on being required to do so, did register her prayer in a prescribed proforma, as advised. The averments made in the writ petition disclose that thereafter, from time to time, through official communications, the respondents did ask the petitioner's mother to comply with various formalities, which she did. That he also, as instructed, did attend rallies at Bhopal for the purpose of his recruitment, has been stated. Eventually however, the mother of the petitioner was informed vide order dated 25.7.2011 that he (petitioner) had meanwhile, become overaged for recruitment in Army. Being aggrieved, the petitioner caused a notice, demanding justice through his counsel, to be served on the respondents, whereafter, in reply, he was informed that his case had been considered by the Board of Officers, and that, he could not find place in the relative merit against the ceiling of 5% vacancies identified for compassionate appointments, and that, his candidature had been rejected. Situated thus, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') with Original Application No.446/2012, in substance, seeking direction to the respondents to provide him with appointment on compassionate ground in a suitable post with all consequential benefits. By the judgment and order impugned herein, the learned Tribunal, having taken note of the fact that the case of the petitioner had been considered for compassionate appointment on four occasions, and that, he could not be provided appointment, having been adjudged to be of low merit, declined to intervene. That compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, was recorded by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are left unpersuaded by the pleas raised.