Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P.N.S. Lakshmi vs Chief Postmaster General, The ... on 19 April, 2007
ORDER Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for quasing and setting aside the order of the Respondent No. 3 in No. B3/CA/PSNML/2005 DATED 11.1.2005 by declaring the same as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently for a direction to the Respondents to give posting orders to the applicant as Postal Assistant at SPM, Amalapuram, as per the prpoceedings in Memo No. B2.TRG, dated at Amalapuram-1 the 19.7.2002 of the Respondent No. 3.
2. It is the case of the applicant that her husband late P. Suri Babu died in harness while he was working as Postal Assistant leaving behind him the applicant and her three children. Salary of her deceased husband was the only source of income since he was the lone bread winner of the family. The applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds for her self. It is un dusputed fact that the Circle Selection Committee considered the case of the applicant along with others and her case was recommended for appointment as Postal Assistant against 5% of total direct recruitment vacancies of the year 2000-01. The applicant was sent for induction training in the Postal Taraining Centre, Mysore from 22.7.2002 to 4.10.2002. The applicant had completed the training successfully. However, the applicant was not given posting orders after completion of the training and her name was deleted from the approved list of candidates for compassionate appointment which was informed to the applicant vide order dated 11.1.2005 of Respondent No. 3, which is enclosed at page-9 of the OA. The contents of the said order are extracted below:
I am directed to inform you that the Circle Relaxation Committee convened Special CRC on 12.10.2004 for selecting already approved candidates in the CRCs held on 13/15.3.2002 & 16.5.2002 and has now not recommended you7r case for compassionate appointment and therefore your name is deleted for the selection.
Questioning the said order of Respondent No. 3 dated 11.1.2005, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the above said relief. It is the contention of the applicant that when there was clear vacancy available as on the date of her application and she was selected by the Circle Relaxation Committee and has been sent for training, which the applicant completed successfully, the deletion of the name of the applicant by the respondents at this stage instead of issuing posting orders by saying that the Circle Relaxation Committee convened special CRC on 12.10.2004 for selecting already approved candidates in the CRCs held on 13/15.3.2002 & 16.5.2002 and that her case was not recommended for the second time is contrary to the object and spirit of the compassionate appointments. In normal course, there will be only one recommendation for appointment. Having recommended her case for compassionate appointment and after completion of her successful training, canceling the appointment is contrary to scheme of compassionate appointment. The applicant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr. .
3. Respondents have contested the case by filing counter reply. It is the case of the respondents that although the applicant's case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee and she was recommended for appointment against 5% of total direct recruitment vacancies of 2000-01 and was sent for induction training which she completed successfully but at that time when the Circle Relaxation Committee was held on 13/15.3.2002 and on 16.5.2002 recommended 5% of the total vacancies for the years 2000-01 and 2002 respectively for appointment on compassionate appointment and the candidates to the extent of 69 were selected. Subsequently the number of 69 was reduced to 21 when 5% of the approved vacancies was taken in view of the instructions of DOPT O.M. dated 16.5.2001 which states that compassionate appointments should be given only to the extent of 5% of the approved vacancies cleared by the screening committee. A special Circle Relaxation Committee was convened on 12.10.2004 to re-examine the 69 cases already approved and recommended. The most deserving candidates by comparative study of the indigent circumstances to the extent of 5% of the approved vacancies were cleared by the screening committee. The applicant was not recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee convened for re-examination. The respondents have given the comparative vacancy position at page-2 of the reply, which is as under:
Year 5% of the total 5% of the approved PA Postmen Group D
vacancies vacancies
2000 10 7 9
2 1 1
2001 12 7 7
5 2 2
2002 08 5 4
5 1 2
Since the applicant has not been recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee, her name was deleted from the list of candidates earlier recommended, vide order dated 11.1.2005. Respondents further submit that in a similar case in OA 434/05, this Tribunal has rejected the OA vide its order dated 20.10.2005 by upholding the action of the respondents in offering appointments to the extent of 5% of the approved vacancies on relative comparison of indigent circumstances of the 69 candidates. The respondents therefore submits that since the applicant is similarly placed to the petitioner in OA 434/05, this OA is also deserves to be rejected.
4. Heard Sri Meherchand Noori for Sri PVSSS Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri V. Bhimanna, learned standing counsel for the Respondents. I have gone through the facts, material papers and the judgments relied upon by the parties.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued strenuously that when the respondents have passed an order selecting the applicant, it is not open for the same authorities to review their decision and to convene special Circle Selection Committee to consider the cases against 5% of approved vacancies. This itself is contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in the case of Union of India v. Joginder Sharma . It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that when the respondents have not stated any thing in the order impugned in this OA as to why it was felt necessary to convene second Circle Relaxation Committee, the respondents cannot, by way of filing reply to OA supplement fresh reasons. However, I find from the impugned order that no reasons were given for convening the special Circle Relaxation Committee on 12.10.2004 for screening the already screened candidates. Therefore, in my view, question of supplementation by fresh reasons does not arise. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the learned Counsel for the applicant in the case of Union of India v. Joginder Sharma is misplaced. From the counter reply filed by the Respondents, I find that it is admitted position that because of the implementation of OM of DOPT dated 16.5.2001, the number of vacancies have been reduced from 69 to 21. In regard to the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant in the case of Union of India v. Joginder Sarma, I find that in the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that '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 cannot compel the authority to accord relaxation'. I am therefore of the opinion that this judgment cannot be of any help to the applicant. However, in this case no such relaxation has been granted by the Respondents. In view of the Hon'ble Apex court decisions (supra), the Tribunal cannot direct the Respondents to relax the ceiling limit of 5% earmarked for compassionate appointments against direct recruitment quota.
6. It is a case where the applicant has been considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee and was also sent for induction training but after implementation of OM dated 16.5.2001 reducing the number of vacancies, a special Circle Relaxation Committee was convened which had not recommended the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. That being the position, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant is also not applicable in this case. As mentioned by the respondents in their counter reply, in a similar case filed in this Tribunal in OA 434/05, this Tribunal rejected the case of the applicant therein. The applicant herein is similarly situated with that of the applicant in OA 434/05 wherein initially 69 candidates were approved but subsequently restricting the selection to 5% of approved vacancies, 21 candidates have been cleared by the Screening Committee in all categories while 48 cases have been rejected including that of the applicant therein. It is in the same selection committee which considered the present applicant along with the applicant in OA 434/05. This Tribunal, in para-2 of the judgment in OA 434/05 has mentioned about the approved vacancies mentioned by the Respondents therein. This Tribunal in the said case discussed the judgment of Apex Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Anr. v. Nanak Chand and Anr. 2005 SCC (L&S) 3571 wherein it was observed that strictly speaking, claim for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Tribunal said that 'when the case of the applicant is rejected on the ground that the compassionate appointment cannot be given to him/her on the ground that there are no vacancies available in the 5% quota, perhaps, the only ground on which the compassionate appointment can be challenged is the relative merit of the candidates selected vis-a-vis the applicant for that purpose.' Finally, Tribunal rejected the said OA. Therefore, the fact remains that the issue involved in this OA has already been decided in a similar OA No. 434/05. In view of the above facts and circumstances and above decision of the Tribunal in OA 434/05 and since in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble in the case of Union of India v. Joginder Sharma, the Tribunal cannot direct the respondents to relax the ceiling limit of 5% approved vacancies, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the applicant by the Tribunal in this OA. OA being devoid of the merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.