Full Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally.
2. The father of the petitioner late Shri Ram Sharan died on 2nd February, 1999 after serving the respondent-Department for about 27 1/2 years. Since he died while in service, therefore, the petitioner being his legal heir filed an application for compassionate appointment in place of his father with the consent of other legal heirs. The application of the petitioner was examined/considered by the Circle Selection Committee on 18th September, 2001. The observation of Committee was that ex-employee had left the four members viz. Widow and three sons. All the sons are major; the applicant is also married; the family has own house to live in at Jaipur; the family received the admissible terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,49,207/- and the widow is getting family pension of Rs. 1750 + DR P.M.; there are no specific social liabilities such as marriage of daughter or education of minor children, therefore, in the opinion of Committee the case of the petitioner was not covered under the guidelines governing compassionate appointment. Apart-from above, it was also observed that in view of 5% ceiling of DR quota prescribed for compassionate appointment under the existing instructions, there are no enough vacancies to accommodate the candidates within a year in the light of existing orders. The direct recruitment has been limited to 1/3rd of the vacancies arising in the year subject to a further ceiling 1% of the total sanctioned strength and as per the orders of DOP & T, 5% of the above vacancies arising under direct recruitment quota in the year will go to the really deserving candidates under compassionate appointment quota. In view of above observation of Circle Selection committee, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 9/10 January, 2002 (Annexure-7) annexed with the writ petition.
3. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court on 2nd November, 2002.
4. A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed their written reply to the writ petition, wherein they have taken a preliminary objection that petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and without availing the alternative remedy, the present writ petition has been filed directly before this Court. On merits, it has been stated in the reply that Circle Selection Committee met on 18th September, 2001 and considered the case as per instructions on compassionate appointment contained in D.O. P & T OM N. 14014/23/99 Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998 read with OM No. 14014/23/99 Estt (D) dated 3.12.1999, the copies of which have been placed on record as Annexures R/1 and R/2. The instructions of the scheme stipulate that the scheme for compassionate appointment is intended to render immediate assistance to the family of Government servant, who dies in harness leaving his family in financial crisis. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Committee rejected the application vide order dated 9/10th January, 2002.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. The exemployee late Shri Ram Sharan died on 2nd February, 1999 and an application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected vide order dated 9/10th January, 2002 on the basis of observations of Circle Selection Committee. The Committee examined the application on the ground of financial crisis and 5% ceiling of DR quota prescribed for compassionate appointment under the existing instructions. The Committee observed that all the three sons of the exemployee are major; the family has own house to live in at Jaipur; family has received admissible terminal benefits; the widow is getting family pension; there is no specific liability such as marriage of daughter or education of minor children. The detailed reasons given by the Committee have been mentioned in the letter dated 9/10th January, 2002, which have been referred above.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2008)11SCC384 held that appointment on compassionate ground can only be granted to tide over the sudden crisis of the family of the deceased and it is a settled principle of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of the recruitment. Para 9 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
9. However, it is now a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the Public Sector Undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. {see I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi }
7. In Union of India v. Joginder Sharma : (2003)ILLJ501SC , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judicial interference with administrative discretion with regard to compassionate appointment and the limit or ceiling of 5% of the vacancies arising in scheme . The denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that quota reserved therefor under the Scheme already exhausted and that Department of Personnel and Training declined to relax the regulation relating to the ceiling of 5%. The Hon'ble Apex Court held, question of relaxing the ceiling limit of 5% being in the discretion of the authority concerned which is purely administrative and not statutory in nature, tribunal or court cannot compel the authority to accord relaxation.
8. In view of above discussions, I find that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been considered by the Circle Selection Committee and the reasons assigned for rejecting the application, as mentioned in the order dated 9/10th January, 2002 (Annexure-7) appear to be just and reasonable and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
9. In view of above discussions, I am of the view that this writ petition is not only liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy by way of Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal but it is also liable to be dismissed on merits for the reasons, as mentioned above. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.