BIBHISHAN MAHATO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th November 2011 passed in O.A. No. 185/2009 (R) by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi).

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that his father while working as a Postman, died in harness on 13th March 2000. His mother made an application on 15th may 2000 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Singhbhum Division, Jamshedpur seeking appointment of her son i.e. the present petitioner on compassionate grounds. The deceased employee had left behind his widow and two daughters aged 25 and 22 years respectively and the petitioner -son aged 30 years. He had undertaken heavy debts in course of his medical treatment for his kidney ailment. The family pension received by the family was Rs. 33,324/ - per annum and the income from agriculture was Rs. 5000/ - per annum. The landed property in the name of the petitioner's family was 1 acre 32.5 and 1/2 decimals. The petitioner's date of birth is 26th December 1974 and possesses qualification of Intermediate in Arts as also Diploma in Computers. He therefore made claim for appointment as Postal / Sorting Assistant.

(3.) THE petitioner contended that in view of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) Office Memorandum dated 5th May 2003, the case of the deserving candidates would be considered for a period of three years under a vacancy of 5% prescribed quota. On getting information through a newspaper that 37 vacancies were available for the post of Postal Assistant, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle for reconsideration of his case. On account of the fact that no decision was taken on his fresh representation, he again preferred Original Application being O.A. No. 43/2004 inter -alia challenging the reasoned order dated 10th July 2003 passed by the Chief Postmaster General. The learned Tribunal directed the respondent to consider his case as and when vacancies arose for appointment on compassionate grounds and to record a speaking order if the case of the petitioner did not find favour. The petitioner preferred a contempt petition before the learned Tribunal which was however withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh O.A. In between the petitioner got an information under the RTI that 29 persons have been appointed during the period 2000 -07 and the case of the applicant was placed before the CRC in its meeting held on 12th December 2006 which did not find him a suitable candidate as per the prescribed parameters. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner once again filed the instant O.A. No. 185/2009 (R) from which the impugned order arises.