IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12778 of 2007 Kumar Shambhu Nath, son oflate Baijnath Maharaj, Resident of Mohalla Vivekanand Nagar, Lichhi Bagan, Dharamganj, Ward No.21, Kishanganj, P.S. and District Kishanganj. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, East Block-IV, Level- III, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-66. 2. Deputy Director, Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, East Block- VI, Level-III, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066. 3. Deputy Director, Regional Office, Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Boring Canal Road, Patna-1. 4. Joint Director, Regional Office, Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001. 5. Mr. T.G. Nallmuttu, son of not known, the then Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, East Block-IV, Level-III, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-66. 6. Mr. G.R. Mahanthi, son of not known, the then Joint Director, Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Regional Office, Boring Canal Road, Patna-1. 7. Deputy Director (Administration) Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, East Block- IV, Level-III, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. ----------- Respondents ----------- 2 11.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Government of India. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 11th March, 2005 as contained in Annexure-21, would submit that it is a blank order, inasmuch as, it does not specify as to what was the limited number of seats against the 2 quota for compassionate appointment, which made the authority to reject the case of the petitioner. This Court had expected that the vagueness in the impugned order probably would get explained by disclosing the facts and figures in the counter affidavit but, that also has been equally belied. Counsel for the Government of India, in fact, has relied on two paragraphs of the counter affidavit, namely, paragraph nos. 24 & 26 but neither of them gives any inkling, which could have even remotely explained the stand of the respondents. The petitioner is knocking the door of the respondents and this Court, ever since 2001 and in a period of eleven years, he has not been disclosed the reason for his being denied appointment on compassionate ground. Normally, such writ application was maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the provisions made in Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 inasmuch as the father of the petitioner was admittedly a Government of 3 India employee. This Court, however, had earlier entertained the writ application of the petitioner and, therefore, non-suiting the petitioner at this stage on account of his not moving Tribunal would not serve the ends of justice. As this Court has found the impugned order contained in Annexure-21 to be wholly non-speaking and vague, it will have no option but, to quash the same and remit the matter back to the competent authority of the Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India. The competent authority would take into account the date of death of the father of the petitioner being 16.7.2001 and would calculate the appointment already made on compassionate ground till the date of filing of the application by the petitioner i.e. 5.9.2001. If in course of such consideration, it is found that by 5.9.2001 5% of quota meant for compassionate appointment had already exhausted, the authority will record the facts and figures 4 to that effect and reject the case of the petitioner. If, on the other hand, it is found that as on 5.9.2001, the quota of 5% was not exhausted and any person was appointed between 6.9.2001 to 11.3.2005, whose father/husband had died after 16.7.2001, then in that case the petitioner will be appointed on compassionate ground if necessary by removing someone who had eaten up the last seat of the quota of 5 percent meant for compassionate appointment. Such a decision must be taken by the competent authority within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)