ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. This case was heard on last occasion i.e. 13.06.2007 and today. While adjourning the case on 13.6.2007, a direction was issued to the respondents to produce the relevant records. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has produced the relevant record.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties.
3. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following reliefs:
In view of the facts mentioned in para 4 and grounds mentioned in para 5 of the application, the applicant herein prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records and set aside the order No. B2/47/CA17/CA17/SS/04 dated 18.4.2005 of the respondent holding that it is highly arbitrary, illegal and discriminative and against the policy of compassionate appointment, consequently to consider the applicant for compassionate appointment in any Group IV vacancy and pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. It is the case of the applicant that she is the widow of Late Satyanarayana, Postman, H.B. Colony, who died in harness on 14.1.2004 leaving behind the applicant and his mother. The applicant submitted representation to the respondents, after the death of her husband, for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that her case did not merit the selection in the comparative study of the indigent circumstances of all the cases placed before the CRC and due to limited number of 5% of the approved vacancies cleared by the screening Committee. Copy of the said rejection letter dated 18/20.4.2005 is enclosed as AnnexureA/1 to the O.A. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. The applicant has referred to a case reported in 2003(1) ALT 32-1 (DN OHC), which according to the applicant is similar to her case. She has also referred to the observation made in the order of this Tribunal dated 23.12.2002 in O.A. No. 1419 of 2002.
5. The respondents have contested the application by filing counter reply. The specific case of the respondents is that the case of the applicant was examined by the CRC held from 14.2.2005 to 11.3.2005 and the CRC has not recommended the case of the applicant as her case did not merit the selection in the comparative study of the indigent circumstances of all the cases placed before the CRC and due to limited number of 5% of the approved vacancies cleared by the screening Committee. They have categorically stated in their counter reply that the applicant has no such liabilities as in the case of other candidates. The mother-in-law of the applicant is a pensioner and the applicant is also getting pension.
6. In compassionate appointments, every case has its own merit and has to be decided according to its merit. Since the respondents have categorically stated in their counter reply that the case of the applicant was not recommended by the Committee as it did not stand in the scrutiny of the CRC which made comparative study of indigent circumstances of all the family of the applicants, the respondent’s counsel was, on the last occasion, directed to produce the relevant record.
7. As per the direction of the this Tribunal dated 13.06.2007, the learned Counsel for the respondents has produced before me the record showing the comparative study of the indigent circumstances of families of other candidates and the applicant. On perusal of the statement of comparative study, I found that the condition of the family of the other candidates, who are selected by the Committee are more indigent than that of the applicant. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong in the decision taken by the committee and, therefore, I find no scope to interfere with the decision of the committee. The applicant is therefore not entitled to get the relief as prayed for by her in this O.A. The O.A. being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.