IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2851 of 2008 SMT.RANJANA DEVI Wife of Late Mohan Jha, resident of Village-Latvasepura, P.S.-Musari Gharari, District- Samastipur Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Commandant, General Reserve Engineer Force, G.R.E.F. Centre, Dighi Camp, Pune, Maharashtra 4. Senior Administrative Officer, G.R.E.F. Centre, Dighi Camp, Pune-15 5. Superintending Engineer (Civil), Incharge Officer (Recruitment), G.R.E.F. Centre, Dighi Camp, Pune-15 6. Director General, Head Quarter, Border Road Organization, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi- 10. ----------- 2. 19.04.2011 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.6.2007 whereby and whereunder she has been refused to compassionate appointment in Indian Armed Force on the ground of lack of vacancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that first of all it was the delay on the part of the respondents that the consideration with regard to death of the husband of the petitioner in the year 1998, was made only in the year 2005 and subsequently, even when such a policy of the Army authorities required continuation of name of the panel for the period of three years, the impugned order rejecting this 2 case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was passed even before expiry of the period of three years. Attractive though the above submissions may be, the crux of the matter still remains confined to an admitted fact that the petitioner’s name was included at serial no. 8, in waiting list of 248 persons in December, 2005 and in 5% of the year marked quota for appointment on compassionate ground no one below serial no. 8, during the currency of the panel of 3 years was appointed. Therefore, even if the impugned order was passed on 30th June, 2007 by taking into account three years of 2005, 2006 and 2007, much cannot turn on this issue inasmuch as even in the year 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner is not sure as to whether anyone below the petitioner in the panel was appointed on compassionate ground. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate ground has to be made strictly as per the policy. The policy of the Indian Armed Force is to reserve only 5% post for compassionate appointment and the lack of vacancy is the sole criteria for rejection of the case of the petitioner. Thus when the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that any one below her in the panel had been appointed on compassionate 3 ground, this Court would find it difficult to give any relief to her. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)