1. By this O.A., applicant has sought direction to the respondents to grant appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds, as he was already selected by the Board of Officers and to pay him full back wages from 1.12.1998 till date.
2. The brief facts, as alleged by the applicant, are that his father late Shri Om Prakash, who was serving as Mate (MTD) in M.T. Section of the office of the Garrison Engineer (North), Meerut Cantt, died in harness on 8.6.1998 leaving behind his widow and applicant among other children. Since they were in great financial hardship, his mother gave an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Applicant appeared before the Board of Officers which interviewed him on 1.12.1998 and found him eligible for compassionate appointment in Class 'D'. Even though he was duly selected but the staff of Respondent No. 4 got another individual appointed in place of applicant by accepting bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from one Smt. Shahida, widow of late Mumtaz Ahmed, Ex-Auditor of CDA (Army), Meerut Cantt. Thus, applicant has been deprived of his appointment in an arbitrary manner. Another person, namely, son of late Hansraj, Electrician of GE (U) E/M, Meerut Cantt, who died in the month of February, 2002 was also given compassionate appointment of LDC in the office of CE, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly Cantt but applicant's case was still ignored. Being aggrieved, he gave number of applications but yet ignoring him altogether appointments were given to number of other persons. Since he was continuously being ignored, he even gave representation to the Hon'ble Minister and even the Hon'ble Prime Minister but still nothing was done by the respondents, therefore, he had no other option but to file the present O.A.3. Respondents have opposed this O.A., on the ground that it is barred by limitation because applicant was duly communicated the letter dated 23.7.2002 whereby his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected but he has suppressed this fact from the court and has not come to the court with clean hands and has filed this O.A. on 4.7.2005 without any fresh cause of action for filing the present O.A. Therefore, the O.A.may be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. On merits, they have categorically denied that any corrupt procedure was followed by any staff of Respondent No. 4. On the contrary, they have explained that in the Board of Officer's meeting held on 1.12.1998, it was only suitability of the candidates, which was assessed. They have stated applicant was found suitable for Group 'D' post (Mazdoor), but it was further subject to relaxation of age limit and approval by the competent authority. Applicant was over age as his date of birth was 8.2.1969. Thereafter, the Board of Officers was constituted under the orders of Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone for considering cases of compassionate appointments from different units falling under Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone. Total 204 cases for the posts of Mazdoor, including the case of applicant, were considered by the Board of Officers, out of which only 10 cases were found as most deserving in the Group 'D' category and all those 10 candidates had scored 80 points whereas the applicant had scored only 49 point.
Therefore, his case was fully considered but could not be recommended as there were more deserving cases than him. They also undertook to place the relevant records for the perusal of the court.
5. Earlier this matter was heard by different Bench where counsel for the applicant had submitted that they had not received the letter dated 23.7.2002 whereby his request for compassionate appointment was rejected but after looking at the records produced by the respondents, my predecessor had recorded a categorical finding in the order dated 24.4.2006 that the letter dated 23.7.2002 had, indeed, been dispatched to the applicant on 25.7.2002 through post. It was, therefore, concluded that there can be no dispute that the letter was duly dispatched by the respondents. In view of above, counsel for applicant gave up this argument.
6. We have, therefore, to proceed in the matter with the presumption that the order dated 23.7.2002 was served on the applicant wherein respondents had clearly mentioned that due to more deserving cases and few vacancies available, applicant's case was not recommended by the Board of Officers for appointment on compassionate grounds. This was a reasoned and detailed order. Therefore, if applicant was aggrieved by the said order, he ought to have challenged it within one year from the date he received this letter. I am satisfied that there is no fresh cause of action for the applicant to have filed the O.A. in the year 2005 because even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the letter dated 23.7.2002 was not received by the applicant, the fact remains that as per applicant's own averments, he was selected by the Board of Officers on 1.12.1998. Therefore, if he was not given the compassionate appointment, he ought to have filed the O.A. within one year thereafter seeking the direction that he should be given the compassionate appointment. Applicant has not even filed any application for condonation of delay, therefore, we cannot condone the delay. In Ramesh Chand Sharma etc. v. Udham Singh Kamal and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) AISLJ SC 89, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: 7. On perusal of the materials on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the explanation sought to be given before us cannot be entertained as no foundation thereof was laid before the Tribunal. It was open to the first respondent to make proper application under Section 21(3) of the Act for condonation of delay and having not done so, he cannot be permitted to take up such contention at this late stage. In our opinion, the O.A. filed before the Tribunal after the expiry of three years could not have been admitted and disposed of on merits in view of the statutory provision contained in Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Moreover, applicant suppressed the order dated 23.7.2002. Therefore, seeing from both the angles, definitely this O.A. is liable to be dismissed on this very ground.
7. I could have dismissed this O.A. on the grounds as mentioned above but now that counter has been filed by the respondents and applicant argued vigorously that he has been denied appointment only because of some bribe having been taken by the staff of Respondent No. 4, it was thought proper to look into the records as well. Accordingly, respondents were directed to produce the relevant records.
8. Respondents have since produced the entire records for court's perusal. From the records, it is clear that the Board of Officers which met on 1.12.1998 had looked only into the suitability of the candidates, who had applied for compassionate appointment. The matter was thereafter referred to the competent authority for seeking their approval and for relaxation of age in case of applicant herein. Similar relaxations were sought in case of other candidates also wherever it was required. The proceedings held on 1.12.1998 clearly show that they had merely assessed the suitability of various candidates for employment of dependents of deceased Govt. servants and had recommended the list for final approval by the competent authority. There was a big list as it contained the names of about 19 persons along with applicant, who were found suitable for different posts. Against the name of applicant at Serial No. 3, in the remarks column, it was mentioned subject to relaxation of age limit by competent authority.
Similarly, remarks were given for other persons also wherever it was required. Therefore, it is clear that it was not only the applicant but there were number of other persons, who were found suitable for different posts and their cases were sent to the office of Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone. The third file shows that the Board of Officers assembled on 01.10.2001 and subsequent dates on the orders of Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone to screen and consider the pending cases of compassionate appointment. Under the category of appointment for the posts of Mazdoor, there were as many as 204 applicants in total, including 19 as recommended by CWE, Meerut. In this meeting, parameters were laid down and marks were given under different columns to all the candidates, namely, family pension, terminal benefits, income from property, moveable/immoveable property, No. of dependents, No. of unmarried daughters, No. of minor children, left over service, etc. and then the marks were calculated. In the said list, we find that applicant's name figured at Serial No. 120 and he had scored only 49 marks out of 100 marks whereas there were number of other candidates who had scored much more marks than the applicant. It is thus clear that respondents had duly considered the cases of all those persons, who were found suitable for different category of posts under different units, which fall under the office of Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone. I am also satisfied that the allegations made by the applicant regarding accepting bribe are absolutely without any basis because appointments have been given only to such of the candidates who had been recommended by the Board of Officers and who had scored the maximum marks. After having seen the records, I am also convinced that the cases were considered in a most transparent manner inasmuch as the whole chart if looked at a glance shows that there is no scope of any arbitrariness in preparing the final list. Therefore, the contention of applicant that respondents had indulged in corrupt practices is rejected.
9. The law is well settled by now by Hon'ble Supreme Court that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right or as a line of succession in each case where the deceased employee dies in harness. After all, if there are such a large number of persons who had applied for compassionate appointment, obviously compassionate appointment could not have been given to all the candidates. It is only the most deserving cases, where compassionate appointment can be recommended, that too within the 5% limited number of vacancies available for the said year. If there are more deserving cases than the applicant, naturally no direction can be given to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant, ignoring the more deserving cases, simply because he has approached the court. Such of the candidates who are less deserving get eliminated in the process itself but by no stretch of imagination, can it be said, that respondents had adopted any arbitrary method or had rejected the claim of applicant wrongly or illegally.
10. I am also satisfied that the Board of Officers at CWE Meerut were not competent authority to finally decide as to who is to be given the compassionate appointment because they only looked into the suitability of the candidates, subject to their qualifications, etc. but matter was to be decided finally by the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone. Therefore, simply because Board of Officers at CWE, Meerut had found him suitable for the post of Mazdoor and had recommended his case, it cannot be taken that applicant was approved for grant of compassionate appointment for the post of Mazdoor, as is alleged by the applicant. In the case of Union of India v. Joginder Sharma 2002 (2) SCSLJ 359, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: So far as the case on hand is concerned, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court seem to have fallen into great and same error. A mere recommendation or expression of view by an authority at the lower level that if relaxation is accorded there is scope for appointment does not obligate the competent authority to necessarily grant relaxation or that the Courts/Tribunals can compel the competent authority to grant relaxation. The reasons assigned by the High Court to reject the challenge made by the appellant, seem to be no reasons in the eye of law apart from they being totally obvious to the very stipulations in the Scheme and the very object underlying the Scheme of making appointments on compassionate grounds. Where the question of relaxation is in the discretion of an authority in the Government and not even in the realm of any statute or statutory rules but purely administrative and that authority as a matter of policy declines to accord relaxation, there is hardly any scope for the Tribunal/Court to compel the exercise to grant relaxation. The two factual instances, sought to be relied upon, on behalf of the respondent, have been properly explained by the applicant to be not really and in substance a deviation from the general policy not to relax so as to alter the ceiling and create more than the stipulated number of vacancies, to appoint persons on compassionate grounds.
11. In view of above, I find no merit in the O.A. The same is accordingly dismissed on merit as well as on limitation. No order as to costs.