RAJIV RANJAN SONDIK Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna Bench) Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 51/00014/2014(R) dated 10th February, 2014, whereby the application preferred by this petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka dated 4th February, 2013 was upheld. The application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 4th February, 2013 and, thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 4th February, 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 51/00014/2014(R). The original applicant has preferred this writ petition for getting compassionate appointment because of death of his father, who expired on 27th July, 2007.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the valuation of the property arrived at by the respondents is absolutely false. Instead of Rs. 3,99,700/, the valuation of the property arrived at by the respondents is at Rs. 1,99,700/, as per the certificate given by the Circle Officer, Karon which is at Annexure10 to the memo of this writ petition. Moreover, the points which are given by the respondents, are absolutely incorrect and, therefore, the petitioner should have been given employment on compassionate basis on death of his father who expired on 27th July, 2007. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna Bench) Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 51/00014/2014(R). If the criteria are same, the points given to this petitioner for different years cannot be different. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and, hence, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna Bench) Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 51/00014/2014(R) deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, at all. In fact, the father of the petitioner expired on 27th July, 2007. Approximately seven and half years' period have already been lapsed. The very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated, by now. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as per the circular issued by the respondents dated 20th January, 2010, the petitioner's case was considered along with several other candidates and more suitable candidates, who were in more need of the compassionate appointments, were given employment. In the year 2008, there were 7 vacancies and the cases of total 28 candidates like the petitioner were considered, but, more needy and suitable candidates were appointed in the year 2008. In the year 2009, there were 11 vacancies and the cases of total 32 candidates like the petitioner were considered and other more suitable candidates were appointed on compassionate basis. Third time in the year 2010, there were few vacancies and the cases of 40 candidates like the petitioner were considered. The case of the petitioner along with other candidates was also considered and other more suitable candidates were appointed. This aspect of the matter has been referred, in detail, in paragraph 6 of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10th February, 2014. As per the Government circular dated 5th May, 2003, the case of the petitioner can be considered for three consecutive years. This circular has also been followed by the respondents and, hence, no error has been committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing O.A. No. 51/00014/2014(R), preferred by this petitioner and, therefore, the present writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: