A compassionate appointment requires adherence to specific qualifying criteria, and failure to meet such criteria invalidates any order for appointment based solely on compassionate grounds.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present writ petition has been filed to quash and set aside a very cryptic order dated 26.11.2015 passed in Original Application No.379 of 2014, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent, claiming compassionate appointment to the post of Chowkidar, which was earlier held by his father.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah has pointed out that throughout the pendency of the present petition, the impugned order has remained stayed as ordered by this Court. It is submitted that the order under challenge is unreasoned, and neither the applicable policy nor the relevant facts have been considered by the Tribunal before passing such order. It is further submitted that the case of the respondent was considered on as many as eight occasions by the petitioner-Department however, he was unable to secure the minimum qualifying marks, i.e. 71 marks as per the policy dated 16.01.2013. Thus, it is urged that on this count also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar and Anr reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718.

3. Vehemently opposing the present petition, learned advocate Mr.Premal Rachh has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal may not be interfered with as the same is precisely passed. It is submitted that the Department in which the father of the respondent was serving, there were hundreds of vacancies and the case of the respondent was required to be considered under the 5% reserved quota for compassionate appointment, which was not done by the authorities. Hence, the Tribunal has precisely directed the Department to appoint the respondent upon the compassionate grounds. Thus, it is urged that the present writ petition may not be entertained.

4. At the outset, we have noticed that the impugned order dated 26.11.2015, allowing the Original Application No.379 of 2014 of the respondent, is absolutely a cryptic order. The Tribunal, without considering the facts of the case and the policy governing the compassionate appointment in the petitioner-Department, has allowed the same by directing the petitioner-Department to appoint the respondent within a period of one month on compassionate grounds. The order is bereft of any discussion of facts or any reasoning relating to the examination of the policy of the petitioner- Department governing the compassionate appointment. Thus, on this count alone, the impugned cryptic order is required to be quashed and set aside. Furthermore, we have also noticed that the Department on as many as eight occasions had considered the case of the respondent in accordance with the policy however, as per the criteria mentioned therein, the total marks secured by the respondent i.e. only 67, falls short of the minimum requirement of 71 marks for the entitlement to compassionate appointment to the post of Chowkidar, which was earlier held by his father. The Department had assessed various parameters such as family details, wife, minor children, daughters / sons, dependents, family pension, terminal benefits, movable or immovable property etc., for arriving at the total figure of 67 marks.