By the Court.—We have heard Shri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, although, name of Sri Anil Yadav has been shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahbad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 749 of 2009 (Surya Prakash Pandey v. Union of India and others), by which the order/decision of the screening committee dated 21.9.2007, rejecting the respondents’ application for compassionate appointment, has been set aside.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the father applicant-respondent was working as Inspector with the Central Excise Department and while working as such, he died on 19.11.2001. Immediately after the death of his father, with the consent of his mother, he filed an application for compassionate appointment on 24.4.2001 on the basis of the prevailing policy of the Government.

4. It appears that the application was kept pending for three years and after expiry of three years, the screening committee refused to consider the case of the respondent-applicant on the ground that more than three years have expired. The decision was taken in terms of the Office memorandum of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT).

5. The Tribunal, while dealing with the matter, found that it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and allowed the claim petition of the respondent-applicant by setting aside the order dated 5.5.2002 with the following direction :

“In view of the settled law, decision of the Screening Committee dated 21.9.2007 which was conveyed by the Administrative Officer Central Excise, Allahabad vide its order dated 5.5.2009 rejecting the claim of the applicant Committee (Annexure A-1) are set aside and quashed with the following directions at (i), (ii) & (iii) below to comply with eight weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(i) the case of the applicant will be kept open till it comes up for consideration on merit.

(ii) A wait list of applicant be published in the order of date of application and be provided to the applicant and also displayed on the office notice board.

(iii) As and when the case of the applicant is considered a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full proceeding and result of the selection process will be declared for all interested applicant to see. The selection process has to be as per rule and based on objective parameters.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the decision of the screening committee, which was based on the Office memorandum of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT). In his submissions, the purpose of compassionate appoint is to save out the family from financial crunch at the earliest possible time and after lapse of many years, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased is still in financial crunch. Therefore, looking into the non-availability of the vacancy and number of applications for compassionate appointment, the Office memorandum of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) was issued, and taking note of that, the screening committee has rightly refused to consider the case of the respondent-applicant as three years have already expired.

7. We fail to understand that if the application was filed well within time and the Department was at fault in not considering the application for compassionate appointment well within time, may be due to non-availability of vacancy, in that eventuality, it was incumbent upon the Department to prepare a wait list and as and when vacancy occurs, the case of the persons falling in the wait list ought to have been considered. It cannot be said unilaterally that after lapse of time, the condition of the family become good or workable without going through the detail