- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused record.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow, whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with regard to his claim for appointment on Group-C post on compassionate ground. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Sri Krishna Pal Singh was a Khalasi (Group-D post) in India Railways. He died in harness on 13.9.2991. After his death, an application was moved by petitioner's mother for petitioner's appointment on the post of Khalasi. While moving the application, the petitioner also appeared in test for appointment against Group-C post on compassionate ground. The petitioner could not succeed in suitability test for Group-C post since he could not secure requisite percentage of marks. Hence petitioner's claim with regard to appointment on compassionate ground against Group-C post, was turned down. However, the petitioner was appointed keeping in view the original request against Group-D post. Apart from failure in suitability test, the other reason for not selection and appointment, was the absence of vacancy at the relevant time. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was appointed against Group-D post by the order dated 13.5.1992. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the grievance that since he is Intermediate, he should have been appointed on Group-C post. The Tribunal dismissed the original application firstly on the ground that the petitioner could not succeed in suitability test and secondly, he has applied for appointment against Group-D post hence he cannot be considered for appointment on Group-C post. Feeling aggrieved with the Tribunal's order, the present writ petition has been preferred.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order petitioner's counsel invited attention of this Court to the Circular dated 31.3.1984 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) and other Circulars dated 3.2.1981 and 30.4.1979 (Annexure No. RA-1 and RA- 2). Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. Director, Higher Secondary Education and others, (2007) 8 SCC 533, as well as Anjani Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (26) LCD 82. On the other hand, it has been submitted by respondent's counsel that since the petitioner could not succeed in suitability test, he lost his right to claim appointment on the Group-C post. It has further been submitted that once the petitioner was considered against Group-D post on the basis of application for compassionate appointment, and appointment was made, the petitioner lost his right to claim appointment against Group-C post. Respondent's counsel relied upon the case in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh (1994) 6 SCC 560, as well as another judgment in I.G. (Karmik) and others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 2 SCC (LandS)417.;