JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri K.R.S. Prakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel representing Sri N. Harinath, Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayer as amended till date:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit that the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings No.RE/127/KNL/23/2000 dtd. 17/10/2000 and the order passed in O.A.No.589/2001 dtd. 25/6/2001 on the file of CAT, Hyderabad are illegal improper and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and set a side the same declaring the OM No.171/2017GDS dtd. 30/5/2020 and OM No.171/2017GDS dtd. 5/3/2020 issued by Department of Posts Government of India Ministry of Communications to the extent of restricting the cases which were rejected by the Committee on Compassionate Engagement between the period Year 2005 to May 2017 as illegal improper and against the fundamental tights of the petitioner and consequently direct the official respondents to consider the petitioners case under revised scheme and to provide the employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds immediately in the vacancy of EDBPM Peddoddi and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case (Prayer amended vide orders passed in I.A No.2 of 2023 in W.P. No.1093 of 2003 dt 6/2/2023)."

3. The petitioner is challenging the order passed in O.A.No.589 of 2001 dtd. 25/6/2001, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, (in short, "Tribunal") by which his O.A was dismissed.

4. In O.A. the petitioner challenged the order dtd. 17/10/2000, by which his claim for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, was rejected by the departmental authorities.

5. The petitioner's late father B. Chenna Kesava Reddy who was EDBPM, Peddoddi died on 10/12/1998, while he was in service. The petitioner was appointed as provisional EDBPM, Peddoddi, but his services were terminated on 5/11/1999. The present 5th respondent D. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, is the petitioner's brother who was continuing as provisional EDBPM, Peddoddi since the date of termination of the petitioner's service. The petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected vide proceedings No.B6/Comp.Appt./BVR dated GTL 11/8/2000. Challenging the said order, initially O.A.No.1277 of 2000 was filed which was disposed of by order dtd. 18/9/2000 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground for appointment. Pursuant to which the petitioner's case, after consideration, was again rejected vide proceedings No.RE/1-27/KNL/23/2000, dtd. 17/10/2000.

6. The order of rejection dtd. 17/10/2000 was passed on the ground that the family of the deceased, consisted of wife, married daughter and 4 grownup sons. The three sons were depending on agriculture. The eldest son was working in a Rural Development Trust. Sri B.Venkateswara Reddy, the applicant, was Inter passed, possessing 2.52 acres of dry land in his own name and possessing own house. The family had no major liabilities like marriages of unmarried daughter, education of minor children etc. Consequently, the family was not in indigent circumstances. Against the order dtd. 17/10/2000, the petitioner filed O.A.No.589 of 2001 which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 25/6/2001, finding no ground to interfere.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, before us, did not dispute the correctness of the grounds on which the order of rejection was passed.

8. Any argument contrary to the petitioner's no indigent circumstances as per the criteria, of having lan