THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22023 of 2011 Dated:05.08.2011 Between: The Director General, Posts (rep. UOI) Department of Posts, Parliament Street, New Delhi, And others. … Petition And P.Fayaz Khan, And another. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22023 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Director General, Posts, Department of Posts, New Delhi, and other Officers of the said Department assail the order of the Cen Administrative Tribunal, dated 20.01.2011, whereby and whereunder petitioners were directed to consider the claim of the first respondent compassionate appointment against the vacancies for the years 2006 2007. The admitted fact of the matter is that the father of the first respond P.Md.Ali Khan, who was Group D employee of the fourth petitioner died 28.01.2005. The first respondent made a representation dated 25.02.201 the second petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in accorda with the Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2003 of the Department of Person & Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensio Government of India. It is the case of the petitioners that the representatio the first respondent was placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee (CR who declined to recommend the case of the first respondent allegedly “du lack of indigent circumstances of the case”. The decision of the CRC w communicated to the first respondent on 23.03.2010 by the Assistant Dire (Recruitment & Welfare), in the Office of the second petitioner. This was subject matter of the lis before the learned Tribunal. The fourth petitioner herein filed the reply statement on behalf of respondents in the Tribunal. It is stated that the case of the first responden appointment on compassionate grounds was considered by CRC 31.01.2007 along with 41 cases and 6 deserving cases were approved wi the 5% quota for Annual Direct Recruitment (ADR) 2005 in accordance with Central Government Memorandum. As per the instructions in the Of Memorandum, dated 14.06.2006, of the Ministry of Personnel, Pu Grievances & Pension Department, filling up of posts under compassion grounds should not exceed 5% of approved vacancies under Di Recruitment quota. The CRC did not recommend the case due to lim number of vacancies i.e., 5% of approved vacancies for the year ADR 2 cleared by the Screening Committee. It is further stated that having conside the indigent circumstances of the first respondent, the CRC did not recomm his case for compassionate appointment. Learned Tribunal, after perusing the minutes of CRC, came to conclusion that the consideration was with reference to 2005 vacancies, that the first respondent was considered only for one year i.e., 2005. Lear Tribunal felt that as the father of the first respondent died in January 2005, h entitled for consideration of his name for the vacancies for the year 2005, 2 and 2007 i.e., for three years as per the scheme. As there was no dispute the case of the first respondent was not considered for 2006 and 2007, the was accordingly disposed of with a direction as noticed hereinabove. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.P.Srikanth, representing the Assis Solicitor General, submits that the case of the first respondent was considered due to lack of indigent circumstances. We have perused the o impugned before the learned Tribunal as well as the reply statement of petitioners herein before the Tribunal. In both of them such a plea was taken. Further, there is no dispute that the case of a person seek compassionate appointment as per the Government of India Scheme has to considered for a period of three years, whereas, the aspirant’s case w considered only for one year. In that view of the matter, the order of the lear Tribunal does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. writ petition is wholly misconceived. The Writ Petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismis without any order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO ________________ (K.G.SHANKAR 05.08.2011 vs