G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) REPORTABLE - Validity of the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, in O.A. No. 290/00381/14 has been assailed, by which Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed O.A. of the respondent, directing petitioners to consider his candidature for compassionate appointment within three months from the date of receipt of the order impugned.
(2.) Factual matrix of the case reveals that respondent Sanjay Singh submitted an application before the appellants for grant of employment under the Provisions of Compassionate Appointment Rules, in place of his deceased father late Sh. Suresh Singh but the same was declined vide letter No. 641-E/E1 G/Comm.clerk/Sanjay/Jodh./2014/13 dated 05.08.2014 disclosing therein that a case Under Section 13 of the R.P.G.O. at P.S. Ratanada was informed to have been lodged, which culminated with a fine of Rs. 100/- in case no. 11/08.01.2011 and the said information was withheld, from disclosing under para 12 (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e) (f), while applying for the same. The respondent assailed validity of the same before Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 01.02.2016.
(3.) Heard rival contentions of both the sides, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order impugn is not sustainable is the eye of Law because learned Central Administrative Tribunal has committed error in passing the impugn order, in fact, respondent concealed factum of his conviction, while submitting application for consideration of his candidature, on the basis of compassionate grounds and did not disclose this vital information under Column 12 of the application form, which was a material concealment and during the course of Police verification, petitioner-Department was informed by the verifying Police Authority that the respondent-applicant was convicted under Section 13 of the R.P.G.O. and a fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed upon him but the petitioner-applicant did not disclose this material information, while submitting the application, hence his candidature was found unworthy to be considered, so under the circumstances the petitioners cannot be directed to consider the candidature of such applicant for employment and Central Administrative Tribunal has erroneously passed order impugn, which may be set aside, reliance has also been made on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the impugn order does not suffer from any infirmity because respondent-applicant is a young man and has never remained indulged in any criminal activity, he was not even aware about any alleged conviction because his counsel never informed him that he has been held guilty by criminal Court, he just tendered fee to his counsel and was under impression that the same was towards the expenses and fee of the counsel, so he cannot be saddled with any such alleged intention or liability to which he was even not aware of, hence his candidature is worthy for consideration under the Provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules 1996 and there is no error in the order impugn, referring Para 35 to 38 of the Judgment of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (Supra) Learned counsel has contended that the alleged offence is trivial in nature, which is to be ignored, so the writ petition suffers merit, hence, it be dismissed. ;