Letters Patent Appeal No.942 OF 2005 (In the matter of an appeal Under Clause X, Appendix E of Patna High Court Rules against the order dated 04.05.2005 passed in CWJC No. 5638 of 2005) ********** MEENA SINGH (WIDOW), WIFE OF LATE SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARARIA, POST OFFICE BAIKH, POLICE STATION MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD ------------------APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 6- SURPENTINE ROAD, NEW DELHI 3. THE JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DIBRUGARH (ASSAM) ………. ………….. …………….RESPONDENTS ************* FOR THE APPELLANT :- MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, SR. ADV FOR THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS :- MR. ARUN KUMAR ARUN, C.G.C. ************ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Shiva Kirti Singh & Sheema Ali Khan, JJ. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the Union of India and perused the judgment of the Writ Court by which the writ petition was dismissed and no interference was made with the order of the concerned authorities of Subsidiary 2 Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi dated 10.12.2004 informing the appellant that her case for grant of employment in Intelligence Bureau on compassionate grounds was considered but could not be recommended due to non-availability of post. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed before us relevant rules relating to the time limit for compassionate appointment to submit that as per guidelines if it is not possible to allow compassionate appointment in the first year due to non-availability of regular vacancy, the prescribed Committee may review such cases by extending the time limit by one more year at a time to a maximum of three years. It was submitted that in this case, the authorities appeared to have omitted to apply the provisions for extending the time limit for compassionate appointment which would have facilitated the case of the appellant by considering her case against the vacancy of the second and third year also. Such submission does not appear to have been made before the Writ Court but in order to appreciate the submission, we went through the records of the case and the writ petition and we find that no such averment has been made either in the writ petition or even in the memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal. 3 The averments in the Letters Patent Appeal relate only to the provisions in the rules or the guidelines permitting extension of time limit upto three considerations but there is no averment that this was not done in the case of the appellant. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in the Letters Patent Appeal in paragraph 7 mentions that the request of the appellant along with others were first considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in October, 2002. It is significant that appellant’s rejection was in December, 2004 vide impugned order contained in Annexure-1. The use of the expression `first considered’ denotes that the case of the appellant was reconsidered. The impugned order in the penultimate paragraph contains an observation that it was not permissible to carry forward a person who could not be accommodated within the five per cent of the quota in the year in which he acquired the right to be considered for appointment. This is clearly not a correct reproduction of the scheme for compassionate appointment as placed before this Court. Such error in the order has crept in because the learned Writ Court was not properly assisted with the scheme which permit relaxation of the time limit for reconsideration for further two years. However, on 4 consideration of the relevant facts and submissions as noticed above, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the Writ Court because there is no ground to interfere with the order of the authorities for the reasons mentioned above. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Patna High Court Dated, the 20th March, 2009 N.A.F.R./Anand ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J. ) ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )