V. Shircy, J.

1. Correctness and Sustainability of Ext.P5 verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.180/00625/2015 is under challenge at the instance of the respondents/Department before the Tribunal.

2. The applicants/respondents herein applied to the Department claiming to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of death of Sri. Prakash, the father of the 1st respondent and the husband of the 2nd respondent, who died on 30.6.2011 while on duty. The request for compassionate appointment for the first respondent was rejected by the Department. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents approached the Tribunal and by the verdict under challenge, the Tribunal directed the Department to reconsider the request for appointment as per an order dated 30.5.2017. The said order is challenged in this Original Petition alleging that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondents possess a land and building and hence their case is not a hard and deserving one. The Department was right in not including them in the category of persons, who have no house or land and in awarding the appropriate point of zero under that attribute as per Rule 10 of Relative Merit Points System (for short 'RMP') is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Department.

3. We heard the learned Counsel for the Department as well the learned Counsel for the respondents.

4. Late V. Prakash was working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS SV for short) at Varkala Post Office. He expired on 13.06.2012. He left behind his wife, the 2nd respondent and his daughter, the 1st respondent. On 4.7.2012, the 2nd respondent had submitted an application for employment for her daughter, the 1st respondent, as per the scheme for employment under compassionate ground. The Scheme provides employment to the Dependents to save them from financial crisis, but unfortunately the application submitted by the widow of Sri. Prakash for his daughter was rejected as per Annexure-A7 dated 03.09.2014 as the Circle Relaxation Committee has not recommended the case. In the communication rejecting the claim, it is specifically stated as follows : -

''For adjudging hard and deserving cases the criterion followed is that the total of the Relative Merit Points (RMPS) should be over and above 50 points. The total of Relative Merit points (RMPS) secured by the 1st respondent is 47 only''.

5. The Scheme of the Department for compassionate appointment is produced as Ext.R1. The said Scheme was subsequently revised by Exts.R2, R3 and R6. Though the document by which the indigence condition of the family was assessed by the Circle Relaxation Committee ('CRC' for short) and allocation of points to various attributes based on a hundred point scale, is not available, the details are furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the Department. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the CRC did not recommend the case of the 1st respondent as she had secured only 47 points, whereas 50 points had to be secured to come under the 'hard and deserving cases' category, and so her request was rejected. The rejection of her application was mainly on the ground that they are possessing 3.24 Ares of land. Annexure A5 is a Certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Chirayinkeezhu certifying that the 2nd respondent is in possession of 03.24 Ares of land. Ext.R4 would show that a building worth Rs.2,49,601/- is situated in the land. So, the 1st respondent cannot be categorized as a homeless or landless person and hence, the rejection of the application by the Department is justified is the stand taken by the Department. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the family does not derive any income from the 3.24 Ares of land and the property is not in the name of the 2nd respondent, but it is a portion of the family property and with the assistance of Panchayath, a small residential building was constructed and denial of compassio