Ajit Kumar, J. - (1.) This intra Court appeal is directed against judgment dated 8th April, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2412 of 2000 holding Office Memorandum (hereinafter referred to as "O.M.) dated 5th May, 2003 issued by Department of Personnel and Training Ministry Personnel Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as "DOPT") to be irrational, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India in so far as it laid down sealing of 3 years for offering compassionate appointment to the candidates and thus quashed order dated 5.10.2007 passed by Director, North Zone, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "Director, F.C.I.") rejecting candidature of petitioners.
(2.) The arguments advanced by learned counsel for Appellant/ Corporation is that instructions contained in O.M. dated 5th May, 2003 of the DOPT by which one year sealing was raised to 3 years, is not to be termed arbitrary and unreasonable, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India for the reason that it is well within the domain of Employer to provide ceiling of time in matter of compassionate appointment. He further brought attention of Court to the O.M. dated 5th May, 2003 by which one year limit earlier prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment was enhanced taking into consideration that one year limit may result in depriving benefit to genuine cases. While enhancing ceiling limit, O.M. provides that in case of non availability of regular vacancies in a relevant year, Prescribed Committee will review such cases and evaluate financial conditions of family whether a particular case warrants extension by one more year and in that circumstances one more year period will be considered and candidature will be carried forward and in same way, next year scrutiny would be done.
(3.) Relevant O.M. Reads as under: "The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel Training OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated Oct. '9 1998 and OM No. 14014/ 23/99-Estt (D) dated Dec. '3, 1999 on the above subject and to say that the question of prescribing a time limit for making appointment on compassionate grounds has been examined in the light of representations received, stating that the one year limit prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment is often resulting in depriving genuine cases seeking compassionate appointments, on account of regular vacancies not being available, within the prescribed period of one year and within the prescribed ceiling of 5 % of direct recruitment quota. It has, therefore, been decided that if compassionate appointment to genuine and deserving cases, as per the guidelines contained in the above Oms is not possible in the first year, due to non-availability of regular vacancy, the prescribed Committee may review such cases to evaluate the financial conditions of the family to arrive at a decision as to whether a particular case warrants extension by one more year, for consideration for compassionate appointment by the Committee, subject to availability of a clear vacancy within the prescribed 5 % quota. If on scrutiny by the Committee, a case is considered to be deserving, the name of such a person can be continued for consideration for one more year. The maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering Compassionate Appointment will be three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the Applicant, his case will be finally closed, and will not be considered again. The instructions contained in the above mentioned Oms stand modified to the extent mentioned above. The above decision may be brought to the notice if all concerned for information, guidance and necessary action.";