- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The applicant being aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A. No. 051/00245/2016 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi vide order dated 16.01.2017, seeking quashing of the order of rejection of compassionate appointment dated 21.05.2015 communicated vide letter dated 03.07.2015, has preferred this writ petition.
(3.) The issue in narrow compass has been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in the following manner:- "The applicant is claiming for compassionate appointment and seeks quashing of the order dated 21.05.2015 communicated vide letter dated 03.07.2015 [Annexure-A/11] wherein the respondents have rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that his case has already been considered five times but could not find place amongst the most deserving candidates to the extent of available vacancies. 2. Going through the application, it is apparent that the father of the applicant died on 24.08.2009. After which his mother had filed application on 13.04.2010 for grant of compassionate appointment in his favour as the deceased employee died leaving behind a widow, two sons and one married daughter. The applicant has also annexed the previous rejection order dated 24.05.2011 [Annexure-A/5] and 17.07.2013 [Annexure-A/7]. On going through the enclosed list of 2012 it is noted that the name of the applicant was at Sl. No.30 in the list containing 73 persons. Likewise, in the list of 2013, the name of the applicant was at Sl.No.19 in the list of 59 candidates. Now by the impugned order dated 21.05.2015, the respondents have clarified that they have rejected the cases of the applicants who have been considered five times or 5 years old, as they could not find place in the list of deserving candidates, either in view of non availability of vacancies or more deserving persons listed above. 3. Since the Department has considered the case of the applicant on several occasions, no fault can be found in their action calling for interference. Things cannot run in perpetuity as the father of the applicant died way back in the year 2009 and the family survived all these years, it may be legitimately considered that there is no urgency. Since the case of the applicant has received due consideration along with others, and cases of 24 persons have been rejected under the same order it cannot be a case of discrimination calling for interference. 4. Hence the OA is dismissed having no merit. No costs." ;