Dismissed

Shibu.S. v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Jan 2009WP(C)/8236/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds following his father's discharge and death. The Board rejected the candidature due to low relative merit points. The court found no illegality in the exercise as petitioner did not meet the threshold points and no material suggested irregularity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned order (Ext.P7) was not set aside.

Shibu.S. Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 8236 of 2005(E) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

SHIBU.S. EX.GS-079249L PNR LATE N.SUKUMARAN RESIDING ZAT PUTHANTHARAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KANDALLUR NORTH, PATTOLI, MARKET P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN SRI.M.S.NISHAD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, BRDB BUILDING, 4TH FLOORT KASHMIR HOSUE, DHQ P.O. NEW DELHI 110 011.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER ROADS, SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN, RING ROAD, DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI 110 010.

¶14

THE COMMANDANT GREF CENTRE, DIGHI CAMP, PUNE.

¶15

THE OFFICER COMMANDING, 100 R.C. COY GREF, C/O.99.A.P.O.

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 4

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 8236 of 2005

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.12.01 FROM THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12701/DEP/DGBR/142/EG2 DATED 29 SEP. 2003 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1456/09/70/EIR DATED 13.10.03 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER
EXT.P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE LR.NO.1456/09/12/EIR DATED 9.6.04 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER
EXT.P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE LR.NO.1456/09/62/EIR DATED 11.9.04 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER
EXT.P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE LR.NO.1456/09/112/EIR DATED 5.1.05 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER
EXT.P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE LR.NO.1456/09/142/EIR DATED 8.2.05 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER

(TRUE COPY)

P.A TO JUDGE

V.GIRI, J

W.P.(C).8236/2005

Dated this the13^th day of January, 2009

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner's father, who had served in the General Reserve Engineer Force, was declared medically unfit and discharged from the Department. He thereafter, succumbed to ailments on 22.11.2001. Petitioner, who was then yet to reach the age of 18, applied to the Department for appointment on compassionate grounds. Application for appointment on compassionate grounds had to be presented within one year from the date of death or discharge on medical grounds. Though original application submitted by the petitioner was defective, petitioner's mother later submitted an application in 2003 and the competent authority directed that the application be treated as one filed within time, namely within one year from the date of death or discharge on medical grounds. Accordingly, petitioner's application was considered by a Board competent to assess the relative merits of similarly situated applicants.

¶29

W.P.(C).8236/2005

¶30

¶31

Going by the counter affidavit, it is seen that the relative merit of the applicants are assessed on 100 points and the petitioner had scored 43 points in a 100 points scale. Respondents were also bound to take note of the ceiling limit of 5% of vacancies which alone could be set apart for appointment on compassionate grounds. They had also taken note of the observations of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Anil Malik v. State of Haryana and Others (JT 1994 (3) SC 525) and the guidelines laid down therein. Ultimately, the Board did not recommend the petitioner's case. Therefore, petitioner could not find a place in the list of approved candidates due to less relative merit points. This was conveyed in Ext.P7 and the same reads as follows:-

¶32

“It is to inform you that your son's case has already been placed before Board of Officers October 2004 and not recommended by the BOO due to less

¶33

W.P.(C).8236/2005

¶34

¶35

relative merit points. Hence this case may place be treated closed.

¶36

However it is suggested that you may advise your son to apply under Son Case category for any suitable post based on his educational qualification as and when vacancies are published by this department in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. GREF Centre will give special weightage to son of serving/retired/deceased GREF personnel for issuing call letter.”

¶37

Ext.P7 has been challenged in this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. I have already referred to the aspects mentioned therein.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be said that there has been any unjustified refusal on the part of the respondents. Taking note of the limited number of vacancies available, an exercise assessing the comparative merit of the candidates had to be

¶39

W.P.(C).8236/2005

¶40

¶41

undertaken. It was done. It seems that the petitioner did not secure the threshold point of 46. There are no materials placed on record to suggest any irregularity or illegality in the exercise undertaken by the respondents. In the circumstances, I do not find my way to set aside Ext.P7 or issue any other direction in this regard. Obviously, the right reserved in favour of the petitioner under Ext.P7 shall remain intact.

¶42

Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

V.GIRI, Judge

¶44

mrcs

Shibu.S. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu.S. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rappai Vs Jino

State of Kerala Vs a.K.Muhammed Kunhi

The Travancore Devaswom Board,Tvm Vs K.R.Venugopal

State of Kerala Vs C.B. Preethi

Dr.P.N.Jayasingh Vs Dr.G.Rajendran

Dr.Joseph Thomas Vs Union of India