The judgment emphasized the importance of the mother's application for compassionate appointment and highlighted that there is no provision for the petitioner's appointment as GDS on compassionate ground.

V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 06.04.2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai in O.A.No.310/01653/2016. By the said order, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. In the O.A., the petitioner had prayed for directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him on compassionate ground in any one of the post including as GDS considering his long years of service as an outsider.

2. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner expired on 19.1.1996 while working as Postman leaving behind his wife, old mother and five sons, including the petitioner. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner and his brothers were minors. The petitioner's mother submitted a representation for appointment on compassionate ground, which was approved against Group 'D' NTC cadre. As there was no vacancy, the mother was put on wait list. In compliance of the DOP&T OM dated 24.11.2000, the Department vide a letter dated 8.2.2001 directed that maintaining of wait list for approved candidates shall be discontinued. The wait list was, therefore, dispensed with, with effect from 25.7.2001. Admittedly, this was not challenged by the mother of the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in 2003 his mother fell ill and she could not approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to seek remedy like others. She, therefore, made a request for appointing her son, the present petitioner, on compassionate ground. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded that the mother of the petitioner had not made any application to authorities to consider the petitioner on compassionate ground.

4. The second respondent allowed the petitioner to work as an outsider at Business Post Centre, T.Nagar Post office. According to the petitioner, he has been working continuously for the past 13 years as an outsider in the Department, hence, he should be appointed on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, though he made an application in the year 2016 for appointment on compassionate ground, the said application has not yet been considered.

5. Though wait list for approved candidates was discontinued in the year 2001, a decision was taken to consider such wait listed candidates for the vacant posts of GDS, if they are willing. It is an admitted fact that though the mother of the petitioner was asked, she did not respond. According to the respondents 1 and 2, as the mother of the petitioner did not respond, she was not offered GDS post.

6. No doubt, the direction to discontinue the wait list was challenged before the Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications, which came to be allowed by order dated 28.3.2002. Thereafter, the Department has challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.38990 of 2002 etc., batch and the same came to be dismissed by a common order dated 13.6.2007. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 7773 of 2009 (Union of India and another v. M.Nallavan) etc. batch. The mother of the petitioner was not one of the respondents before the Apex Court, nor she had taken steps for impleading her in the said matter. It may be stated that the Apex Court, in its common order dated 30.7.2010, has clearly stated that findings and observations shall not be treated as precedent for the purpose of any other case or cases that may be pending.

7. It may be stated that action of the Department and discontinuing the wait listed candidates stands confirmed by the order of the Apex Court setting aside the findings and observations of the Tribunal and the High Court, hence, the validity of the order issued by the Department to discontinue the wait listed candidates cannot be challenged after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. M.Nallavan, supra.

8. According to the