IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6218 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR BHAGAT Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma,Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, Adv. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Barin Ghosh ------------ Dated, the 11th July, 2008. We heard counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. The Screening Committee in its report observed, thus: - “In the year 1999 one no. of vacancy was available for compassionate appointment. Since the DOPT OM no.14014/23/99 Estt. (D) dated 3.12.99 became effective after Dec: 1999, all the six application pending at the time (upto Dec. 1999) placed at Sl. No.1 to Sl. No.6 of the Annexure-1) were considered for appointment against one number of vacancy on the basis of their economic and dependency status as stated in Annexure-1. Sri Rajan Kumar, S/o Late Sri Sardanand Jha was identified as the most really deserving candidate among the six applicants and hence recommended for appointment. In the year 2001, the total vacancy available was 40 and out of which keeping a ceiling of 5% for compassionate appointment, the vacancy available for compassionate appointment was 2 nos. Out of these 2 nos. of vacancy, one has already been considered among the applicants upto Dec.1999. After 1999 there were two applicants as placed at Sl.No.7 & Sl.No.8. The father of applicant at Sl.No.7 Sri Raghunath Rout died in 2000. - 2 - Since his application was to be considered within one year, therefore, the case of both applicants at Sl.No.7 and Sl.No.8 were considered for the vacancy occurring in the year 2001. Considering their economic & dependency status Sri Harindra Rout, S/o Late Sri Raghunath Rout has been identified as the really deserving candidate and hence recommended for compassionate appointment.” 3. The Screening Committee has considered the comparative merits of the various candidates, seeking appointment on compassionate ground, keeping in view diverse factors, like, number of dependents, status of employee’s dependent, family pension, G.P.F., gratuity and service rendered by the deceased employee. 4. Based on these factors, the screening committee was of the view that for the two vacancies Rajan Kumar and Harindra Rout were most deserving. 5. The consideration of the matter by the screening committee as well as by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be faulted. 6. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Barin Ghosh, J Pawan/-