C.W.P.No.15542 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.15542 of 2009 Date of Decision : 22.12.2009 Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Central Standing Counsel, for respondent No.1-Union of India. Ms. Liza Gill, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 27.11.2008, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, was dismissed. Subsequently, the review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 18.3.2009. Father of the petitioner namely Shri Kanwar Pal was appointed in the Police Department as Sweeper vide letter of appointment dated 29.3.1983. He died on 20.11.2003 leaving behind his widow Smt. Rajesh Devi, three sons and two daughters. C.W.P.No.15542 of 2009 2 The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the Policy framed by the Government of India on 9.10.1988. Such claim of compassionate appointment was recommended on 27.2.2004. Since the post within 5% quota to be filled up by way of compassionate appointment was not available, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate grounds within a period of three years. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, was declined. The learned Tribunal in the Original Application filed by the petitioner, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, found that the petitioner has no right to compassionate appointment de hors of the scheme. The name of the petitioner was considered under the scheme twice and was recommended for appointment, but could not be appointed on account of non-availability of the vacancy against the prescribed quota for such appointment. Though under the pre-revised instructions, request for compassionate appointment was to be continued for a year, but in the revised instructions, the period has been extended to three years. Since no post within the period of three years became available to be filled up amongst the candidates seeking appointment of compassionate grounds, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Clauses (e) & (f) of Para 7 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment to contend that even if the vacancy was not available in the Police Department, the name of the petitioner should have been circulated to the other Departments, to find out the suitable vacancy. It is also contended that the name of the petitioner was kept as a General pool candidate, though C.W.P.No.15542 of 2009 3 he is a Reserved category candidate and, therefore, his name should have been kept in the pool of the candidates meant for Reserved category. On behalf of the respondents, it was explained that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Common Committee on Compassionate Appointments in its meeting held on 5.11.2004. But only one post fell vacant against 5% quota. One Suresh Kumar son of Ram Kumar being a senior-most in the list, was given appointment. The name of the petitioner alongwith ten other candidates was forwarded for circulation to other Departments on 27.7.2005. The name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.485 of the common pool. On 25.8.2005, the Common Committee on Compassionate Appointments granted extension to the petitioner upto 19.11.2006. It could not be disputed by the petitioner that no post in respect of appointment on compassionate appointment was available in the Police Department against which he could be appointed. It is not the case of the petitioner that any person, whose name was included later in the list of candidates seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, was appointed. Since, there was no post available in the Police Department, his name was kept in a General pool for appointment in other Departments. The turn of the petitioner unfortunately did not mature for appointment as a General pool candidate as well. The right to seek appointment on compassionate basis has been considered in detail by this Court in a judgment reported as Union Territory, Chandigarh and others Vs. Racho Devi and another 2008 (2) SCT 602. For the reasons recorded above and in Racho Devi's case (supra), we do not find patent illegality in the order passed by the learned C.W.P.No.15542 of 2009 4 Tribunal, which may warrant any interference in the writ jursidiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 08.12.2009 (JORA SINGH) Vimal JUDGE