A writ petition filed to quash the Central Administrative Tribunal's order refusing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The High Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's decision, as compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to vacancy limits (5%).
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.3893 OF 2003
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 04.9.2002, in O.A.No.1065 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Postal Assistant on compassionate grounds.
2. Case of the petitioner/applicant is that his father – C. Krishna, while working as Group D employee at Jangaon Head Post Office, died in harness on 14.1.1995. He belongs to a poor family and taking into consideration the indigence circumstances of the family, he was selected for compassionate appointment as Postman at Hanamkonda. He was instructed therein that he would be utilized in temporary vacancy and accordingly, he was working as Group D employee at Jangaon Head Post Office expecting regularization. While so, respondent No.1 vide letter, dated 20-23.7.2001, intimated that the list of approved candidates for compassionate appointment was discontinued by respondent No.3 though the department had completed all formalities and obtained attestation forms also and allowed him to officiate wherever there was vacancy for almost four years. The applicant was removed from the temporary post and his name was discontinued from the approved list. So, he filed the aforementioned Original Application.
3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, disposed of the Original Application holding that O.A.No.1103 of 2001 and batch
was disposed of by the Tribunal on 27.3.2002 and that the facts, reliefs and the contentions raised therein are one and the same. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/applicant.
4. Heard both sides.
5. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal because considering the case of the applicant, the Tribunal held that the applicant cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. However, liberty is given to the department to consider the case of the applicant against available vacancies in the order of seniority of the applicant without discrimination and as per the rules. The compassionate appointment can be given only within the limit of 5% of the available vacancies. Therefore, that order needs no interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS
Date: 10.03.2014 AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.3893 OF 2003
DATE: 10.03.2014
AMD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order refusing compassionate appointment as a matter of right can be challenged in this Court.
Whether the department can consider the applicant's case against available vacancies without discrimination.
Whether the writ petition deserves interference regarding compassionate appointment limits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Krishna (applicants in original/application)
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.3
K.C. Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
