WP(C) 6263/2010 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY ( Amitava Roy,J) The subject matter of challenge in the instant petition is the judgment and orde r dated 21.1.2010 rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwah ati Bench, Guwahati ( hereafter after referred to as the ’Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 41/2009. The backdrop of facts in short is that, the respondent after the demise of his f ather, Hari Prasad Sharma who died in harness while serving in the Army as a W atchman under No.1 Advance Stationary Depot, Narengi, Assam, applied for such po st in terms of the existing policy of Appointment on compassionate ground of the appellants in relaxation to the normal Rules. His candidature was exami ned along with other candidates in a selection process held on 20.1.2001 and 31. 1.2001 and though he seemed to had scored 45 marks on a comparative assessmen t of his performance with other contenders, he was denied such appointment. The respondent participated in other selection processes that followed on 25/5/20 01 and 1.11.2001 and scored 63 and 65 marks respectively. On the same analogy, as the respondent could not display the required level of performance, the co mpassionate appointment was not accorded to him. Situated thus, he approached t his Court with WP( C) No.2103/2005 which was disposed of on 8.10.2007. It transp ired from the pleadings laid by the parties and the deliberations that followed that the appellants had awarded 45 marks to the Respondent by adopting a meth odology in deviation from one uniformly applied to others. This Court recorded that on the basis of the parameter accepted for the purpose, he was entitled to be awarded 65 marks. The appellants herein were directed to consider the case of the respondent afresh by accepting his marks to be 65 for the relief under the scheme and guidelines provided for selection of candidates for appointmen t in Group-D posts on compassionate ground. The appellants in purported deference to this direction of this Court reconsid ered the case of the respondent along with other candidates in a fresh selecti on process by considering him to have scored 65 marks and denied appointment to him for not being able to come within the zone of the selected candidates for ap pointment to the post. Being dissatisfied, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal which, by the impugned judgment and order has directed the appellants to appoint him within a time frame of two months . The orders impugned in the Original Application we re set aside. Mr Bhagawati has urged that as the respondent did not qualify on the basis of 6 5 marks on a comparative evaluation of the performance of the other candidates, the aforementioned direction of the learned Tribunal is palpably illegal and oug ht to be interfered with. As the case of the respondent has been considered in terms of the judgment and order of this Court, the learned Tribunal ought not t o have directed his appointment in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr Ahmed, on the other hand, has argued that the consideration of the case of th e respondent not being in consonance with the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 passed by this Court in WP( C) No.2103/2005, the di rection of the learned ’Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 8.10. 2007 as aforementioned, we are inclined to agree with the plea raised on behalf of the respondent. Reading between the lines, the judgment and order dated 8.1 0.2007 does not suggest a fresh consideration of the respondent along with ot her candidates in a new selection process. This Court while issuing direction for fresh consideration of the respondent was conscious of the fact that in th e first selection process the last candidate who had been provided with compass ionate appointment had scored 64 marks i.e. one less than that was awarded to the respondent. The fresh consideration was intended to be on the basis of 65 marks vis a vis, the first selection process and the posts involved therein. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the method of consideration of the case of the respondent adopted by the appellants as is apparent on the face of the records, determination of the learned Tribunal as recorded in the impugn ed judgment and order is unassailable. Mr Bhagawati has submitted on instructions that all vacancies identified for co mpassionate appointment in the first selection process have since been filled u p and that there is no post to accommodate the respondent even on the basis of his marks as on date. It is a matter of record that the judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 passed by this Court in WP ( C) No.2103/2005 has remained un-assailed as on date and ther efore has attained finality. It is noticeable as well that the candidates who ha d scored 64 marks in the first selection has not been made party in the instan t petition or in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. In the above view of the matter, while upholding the direction of the learned T ribunal to appoint the respondent , we make it clear that the appellants would find out the ways and means to identify a vacancy commensurate to the respon dent’s eligibility and accommodate him in implementation of the impugned order of the learned Tribunal to the above effect and affirmed by us. This should be done within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified c opy of this order. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.