Thomas Mathew, Member (A).
1. The petitioner is the widow of late Sgt. Geethanandan K.P. of the Air Force, who died while in service on 12.4.2005. She is aggrieved by the denial of employment assistance under indigent circumstances scheme of the government.
2. It has been averred by the petitioner that her application for employment assistance was made on 3.5.2005 immediately after the death of her husband. The respondents kept sending back the application for some additional documents and signatures. The application was finally accepted and it was conveyed to her that the same would be processed and she would be informed of the result. The respondents informed her vide a letter of 18.3.2008 that her application for employment has been rejected by the competent authority.
3. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents have not considered her poor financial condition which has been clearly brought out in the various certificates issued by the local administration. Her application had been filed as early as on 10.11.2006, but she was considered for the assistance only in June 2007. Further, it has been contended that she meets all the requirements for employment assistance as envisaged in law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that she has to look after a minor child and the aged mother-in-law. She has no residential house or income of her own and is in financial difficulty. The respondents have only informed her that she had lower points in the overall merit without giving any details. Action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen under the Constitution. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing the order denying her employment assistance and consider her application afresh in accordance with law taking into account the certificates issued by the competent authorities regarding her financial condition and provide compassionate appointment to her.
4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have averred that Government Scheme for employment assistance to dependents of employee dying while in service is regulated by the instructions and guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and concerned ministries. Totally 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies in Group 'C' and 'D' civilian posts are available for such appointment. The applications of the dependents are finalised keeping in view relative indigence of the applicant based on the DOPT Scheme (Ext.R1). The Ministry of Defence vide their order of 9.3.2001 (Ext.R2) has spelt out a hundred point scale in respect of specified parameters such as family pension, unmarried daughter, minor children, movable/immovable property, terminal benefits and so on to prepare a relative merit list of all the applicants considered together. In the Air Force, a Board of Officers (BOO) considers application of each category and based on the marks obtained recommends names to the competent authority. Each case is considered on three occasions by BOO and is finally rejected only if it does not come up in merit to be within the available vacancies.
5. It has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner's application initially submitted was returned due to some omissions and then again it had to be returned a second time due to certain errors. Her application dated 10.11.2006 which was complete in all respects was then processed and put through three consecutive BOOs, on June 2007, September 2007 and December 2007. The petitioner had secured 44 points which was comparatively lower than other applicants and therefore she failed to secure employment assistance.
6. The respondents have averred that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. Financial and family condition of all applicants are considered and merit points awarded. Depending on the vacancies made available, appointments are given to those in the top of the merit list. The procedure is uniformly applied to all applicants in the category and is based on the Government Orders on the subject. Hence, there is no illegality or discrimination in the process that has been adopted.
7. The respondents have submitted that if there was any delay in processing the application of the petitioner, it was only due to the incomplete forms sent by the petitioner repeatedly. All documents sent by her have been considered and marks allotted accordingly. Petitioner had secured 44 points where as the successful candidates had secured 69 points, 74 points and 65 points respectively in the three Boards. The respondents have averred that no illegality or injustice has been done to the petitioner and her marks have been complied based on the details provided by her in the application.
8. We have perused the documents produced and heard both sides. On our directions, the three concerned Board proceedings giving details of marks obtained by every applicant in each Board was made available by the respondents.
9. It is seen from Ext.P11 that the respondents had informed the petitioner the details of marks that she had obtained. It is clear from the document that the petitioner has been awarded points as per the instructions contained in the Ministry of Defence letter (Ext.P9/3 and 4).
10. A perusal of the Board proceedings of June 2007, September 2007 and December 2007 give a clear picture of the position of the petitioner vis-a-vis other applicants considered in those Boards. Details are as follows:
(a) June 2007 BOO. One vacancy was available. The successful candidate had secured 69 points and the petitioner 44 points. There were 27 candidates with higher merit points than the petitioner who did not get an appointment.
(b) September 2007 BOO. One vacancy was available. The successful candidate had secured 74 points and the petitioner 44 points. There were 23 candidates with higher merit points than the petitioner who did not get an appointment.
(c) December 2007 BOO. One vacancy was available. The successful candidate had secured 65 points and the petitioner 44 points. There were 19 candidates with higher merit points than the petitioner who did not get an appointment.
11. We are, therefore, convinced that the respondents have considered the application of the petitioner for employment assistance as per the orders in vogue. She has been given marks by the Board of Officers as per the instructions on the subject based on the inputs provided by the petitioner herself. It is clear that the marks obtained by the petitioner is much lower than the successful candidates. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no requirement for us to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents.
12. In the result, the Transferred Application is dismissed.
No costs. Issue free copies to all.