1. The applicant has filed this OA, seeking the following reliefs:-
“8.1 Set aside the impugned Office Order dated 16.06.2015 rejecting the claim of the applicant;
8.2 To call for the complete records of decision making process of impugned Office Order dated 16.06.2015 rejecting the claim of the applicant for
just and fair adjudication of the case.
8.3 Pass Order(s) directing the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in place of his father who was working as UDC with
the respondent.â€
2. The applicant in this OA is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.06.2015 whereby the respondent had rejected the claim of the applicant for
appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant has challenged the said order on the ground that there is no justification given by the
respondents in allocating 62 points on the already pending application of the applicant dated 28.08.2012 at the time there was no standing operating
procedure which came effect on 15.05.2013 while at the relevant time DOPT guidelines were being followed. He has also pleaded that the
respondents have failed to disclose the vacancy position as on the date of application under the Compensate Appointment and status of applicant
where he was serially placed. It is only when on the date of application dated 28.08.2012 of the applicant, the vacancies ought to have been fulfilled
considering the rule position applicable at that time and not to apply the same after a gap of more than two years unless and until the waitlist as on
28.08.2012 ought to have been exhausted then only standard operating procedure ought to have been applied.
3. We have perused the additional affidavit filed by the respondent in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 26.07.2018 which clearly
indicates that they have devised grading points by formulating Standard Operating Procedure for consideration of compassionate appointment cases in
view the DoPT’s OM No.14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998 and OM No. 14014/23/99-Estt.(D) dated 03.12.1999 and when the instructions of
the aforesaid OM were not found to be strictly followed by the Screening Committee held on 12.08.2013 for the year 2007-11, they have rightly
withdrawn the minutes of the said Committee. The respondent has also been able to show from their reply filed on 11.01.2017 that the Screening
Committee, which met on 01.07.2014 had duly examined the total 154 applications, including that of the applicant against the total posts to be filled on
compassionate grounds for the year 2011-13 in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure and had not found the applicant eligible for compassionate
appointment as he had scored only 62 points which was far below the other candidates who applied and became eligible as shown in Annexure C of
the reply. We also note from Para 3 of the CA that the there were 7 posts, i.e., 5 for Group C and 02 for Group D for compassionate appointment
pertaining to the year 2011-13, i.e., 5% of total vacancies in a year as per DoP&T guidelines and the aforesaid Screening Committee, which had met
on 01.07.2014, examined total 154 applications received from Delhi Zone including that of the applicant and recommendations to that effect were duly
issued vide order dated 09.09.2014 as shown from Annexure B of the CA. In view of the same, it is clear that the cases of all the Prasar Bharti
employees for the vacancy year 2011-2013 on compassionate grounds have been duly considered as per Standard Operating Procedure by the said
Screening Committee. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent in rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate
appointment in view of the Standard Operating Procedure. A copy of the points tables of all candidates has also been placed at Annexure C by
respondents and a perusal of the same shows the detailed marking after consideration of all parameters for compassionate appointment. It is also not
within the domain of the Tribunal to give the points on the basis of the details provided by the applicants and it is the prerogative of the respondents to
assess the eligibility of the applicants and accordingly award the points on the basis of the details provided by them. In the case of Nanak Chand v.
Delhi Jal Board, 2007(140)DLT 489, the Honâ€ble High Court clearly held as under:-
“14. The mandate of the Supreme Court is very clear from the aforestated judgments that it is not for the High Court in exercise of its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision arrived at by the competent authority while considering the eligibility of an
applicant for appointment on compassionate basis and all it can do is to see whether the decision of the competent authority is vitiated. Having
scrutinized the cases in hand in the aforesaid background, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the findings of facts and the
conclusion arrived at by the competent authority.â€
4. In view of the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
5. However, we would also like to point out that as per DoPT OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013, the applicant can, if he so desires,
again apply for compassionate appointment. If any such fresh application is moved by him, the respondent shall consider the same in the next meeting
of the Compassionate Appointments Committee in terms of the aforesaid OM and inform the applicant about the decision taken by the Compassionate
Appointments Committee within one month of the said meeting.
