IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 28668 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.115/2007 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH. .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENT: ----------------------- SEENA.T.D., D/O.T.K.DIVAKARAN, THANNICKAPADATHIL, KARINILAM PO., PULIKKUNNU, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28668 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.115/2007. The respondent herein was the applicant. She was a candidate for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. Her father took voluntary retirement from service on medical grounds. In such cases, the dependent son or daughter is entitled to be considered for appointment. When her application for employment under the compassionate appointment scheme was not allowed, she approached the CAT by filing O.A.No.222/03. The said Original Application was disposed of by Annexure A3 order dated 21.3.2003 produced along with Exhibit P4 copy of the O.A. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “2. When the application came up for hearing on admission, the learned counsel on either side agree that the application may be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Annexure A4 representation of the applicant and to give him an appropriate reply within a reasonable time. W.P.(C)No.28668/08 -2- 3. In the light of the above submission of the learned counsel on either side, we dispose of this application directing the 2nd respondent to consider Annexure A4 representation of the applicant and to give a speaking order to the applicant within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 2. The respondent/applicant submitted that her claim was never considered pursuant to the above order. So, she again filed O.A.No.115/07. The said O.A. was heard and disposed of by Exhibit P6 directing the competent authority among the writ petitioners to consider her claim for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “8. In view of the above discussion, this O.A. is disposed of with clear direction to the respondents: a) to consider the case of the applicant for the second time and in case of necessity, for the 3rd time in future; b) to allot necessary marks prescribed for each item as per the existing orders on the subject; c) to compare the case of the applicant with those of others to find out whether the applicant's case falls under the most deserving category; d) to communicate the decision of the committee that may be taken by following the W.P.(C)No.28668/08 -3- aforesaid procedure; and e) in the event of the applicant's case falling within the deserving category, to offer necessary appointment suiting her qualification and if, by any chance the case is not coming under deserving category, to inform the applicant by a speaking order giving details of those cases wherein appointments have been recommended. The above direction shall be complied with by considering the case in the next meeting of the Selection Committee. No costs.” A copy of that order of the CAT is produced as Exhibit P6. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exhibit P6. 3. According to the petitioners, the respondent/applicant 's claim was already considered and rejected. The copy of Annexure A3 order of the CAT was never served on the competent authority. Nor the representation directed to be considered by that order was received by the authority. The applicant is ineligible for appointment having regard to the financial position of her family. Therefore, the direction to consider her claim was unwarranted. So, the petitioners pray for quashing Exhibit P6. 4. In fact, respondent/applicant's claim was considered and rejected before the issuance of Annexure A3 order. We notice that W.P.(C)No.28668/08 -4- Annexure A3 order of the Tribunal to reconsider the claim of the applicant has become final. The petitioners were represented through counsel when it was passed. Unless that order is avoided in appropriate proceedings, the present direction which is only a repetition of the direction given earlier cannot be resisted by the writ petitioners. Further, we notice that the Tribunal only directed consideration of the claim of the applicant in accordance with law. Therefore, no ground has been made out warranting interference with Exhibit P6 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn