raised was that the dependent of a person who has been given a larger amount as a family pension, terminal benefits etc. and with substantially more monthly income than the petitioner/applicant has been granted appointment under the compassionate employment scheme, whereas the case of the petitioner/applicant was rejected. We have gone through Ext.P4 which sets out the manner in which the relative merit points are awarded in respect of candidates. Going through Ext.P4 we feel that while the family pension, terminal benefits and monthly income assessed in respect of candidate who got an appointment or was recommended for appointment (one V. Vishnu) is on a higher side compared to the family pension, discharge benefits and monthly income assessed in respect of the petitioner/ applicant, the other parameters on the basis of the marks were awarded such as the availability or otherwise of a residential house, number of dependents, number of minor children, leftover service etc shows that the Department had properly assessed the circumstances of the competing candidates to arrive at a conclusion that the aforesaid V. Vishnu was more deserving than the petitioner/applicant. The assessment of the case of the petitioner/applicant is in accordance with the procedure evolved for consideration of such applicants and we do not think that the petitioner/applicant can challenge the method of evaluation in any manner. That apart, from the details extracted above, we feel that the assessment made by the Department in the case of petitioner/ applicant
