IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twentieth day June Two thousand and Seven PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMARAO ELIPE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU W.P.Nos.38990 of 2002, 2832 to 2835 of 2003, 9996 of 2003, 10059 of 2003, 30188, 30345 & 34623 of 2003, 2567, 2711 , 2750, 2762, 3003, 3004, 3766, 3767 3810, 4163, 4164, 4172, 4940 of 2004, 4986 of 2004, 5132 of 2004, 6369 of 2004, 6424 of 2004, 11367 of 2004, 21433 of 2004, 22944 of 2004, & 19967 of 2005, AND W.P.M.P.Nos.58153 of 2002, 3542 to 3545 of 2003, 12665 of 2003, 12760 of 2003, 36870 of 2003, 37066 of 2003, 42057 of 2003, 2934 of 2004, 3142 of 2004, 3222 of 2004, 3239 of 2004, 3537 of 2004, 3539 of 2004, 4428 of 2004, 4430 of 2004, 4481 of 2004, 4901 of 2004, 4903 of 2004, 4912 of 2004, 5771 of 2004, 5819 of 2004, 7525 of 2004, 7608 of 2004, 13392 of 2004, 25916 of 2004, 27754 of 2004, 21748 of 2005, AND W.V.M.P.No.2067 of 2006 1.Union of India, rep by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-2 2.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City South Division, Chennai. ...Petitioner in WP.No. 38990/02 ...Petitioner and Nil in WP.Nos.2834/03, 2835/03 ...1st Petitioner and Nil in WP.4986/04, 19967/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. Union Of India, rep by the Director General (Post) Dah Bhavan, Samsed Marg, New Delhi 1. 2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Personnal and Training M/o Personnel Public and Pensions, New Delhi 110 001 3. The Chief Post Master General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai 2. 4. The Chief Post Master, Chennai GPO chennai ...Petitioner in WP.No.2832/03 ...Petitioner 1, 2 & 3 and nil in WP.No.2833/03 Nil, Nil 2nd petitioner and Nil in WP.Nos.2834, 2835/03, 3810/04, 4163/04, 4164/04, 4940/04 5132/03 2nd petitioner IN WP.34623/03 ...1st petitioner nil 3rd petitioner and nil in WP.10059/03, 34623/03 1st petitioner in WP.3810/04 WP.No.4163/04 ISt Petitioner nil, 2nd Petitioner nil in W.P.3810/04, 4163/04, 4164/04, 4940/04, 5132/04, 6369/04 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pondicherry Division Pondicherry. The Superintendent Of Posts Offices, Chengalpattu Division, Chengalpattu. ...Petitioner 4 & 5 in WP.No.2833/03 1. The Union of India rep by Ministry of Communication Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan New Delhi. ...1st petitioner in WP.9996/03, and 10059/06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Director General of Posts, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, New Delhi 1. ...2nd petitioner in WP.No.9996/03 10059/03 3. The Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai ...3rd petitioner in WP.No.10059/03 Union of India, rep by Superintendent of Post Officer, Salem West Division, Salem, Salem District, ...Petitioner in WP.No.30188/03 30345/03 ... 3rd Petitioner in W.P.5132/04 The Senior Superintendent RMS Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai 8. ...3rd Petitioner in WP.34623/03 The Union of India represented by the Chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu Circle Chennai 600 002 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Nilgiris Division Udhagamandalam 643 001 ..Petitioners in WP Nos. 2567/04, 2711/04, 2750/04, 2762/04, 3003/04, 3004/04, 3767/04 .. 1st Petitioner in WP NO. 3766/04 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Tuticorin Division Tuticorin 628 008 .. 2nd Petitioner in WP NO. 3766/04 and 4986/04 ..3rd Petitioner in WP NO. 4164/04 The Senior Superintendent of RMS RMS 'MA' Division Madurai 625 001 .. 3rd Petitioner in WP NO. 3810/04 and 4163/04 4940/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The Union of India represented by Ministry of Communications Department of Posts Dah Bhavan Samsad Marg New Delhi 110 001 2.The Director General of Posts Department of posts Dah Bhavan; Samsad Marg New Delhi 110 001 3. The Chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu circle Chennai 600 002 The Principal Chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu Circle Chennai 600 002 ..Petitioner in W.P.4172/04, 6424/04 .. 1st petitioner nil 2nd Petitioner in WP NO. 21433/04 The Senior Superintendent of Post offices Virudhunagar Division Virudhunagar 626 001 .. 3rd Petitioner in WP NO. 6369/04 The Union of India represented by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vellore Division, Vellore Vellore District .. Petitioner in WP NO. 11367/04 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Tambaram Division Tambaram, Chennai .. 3rd Petitioner in WP NO. 21433/04 Union of India represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai .. Petitioner in WP NO 22944/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Senior Superintendent of post offices, Madras city North Division Department of Post Commander-in Chief Road, Egmore Chennai 600 008 .. 2nd Petitioner in WP NO. 19967/05 vs The Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Buildings Chennai 600 104 .. 1st respondent in WP Nos. 38990/02, 2832/03, 2833/03, 2834/03, 2835/03, 9996/03, 11367/04, 21433/04, 22944/04, 10059/03 2nd Respondent in WP NOS. 30188/03, 30345/03, 34623/03, 2567/04, 2711/04, 2750/04, 2762/04, 3003/04, 3004/04, 3766/04, 3767/04, 3810/04, 4163/04, 4164/04, 4940/04, 4986/04, 6369/04 and 19967/05 3rd Respondent in WP NO. 5132/04 17th respondent in WP NO. 6424/04 2. M. Nallavan 2nd Respondent in WP NO. 38990/02 2. D. Bendict Don Bosco 3. M. Prabhavathy 4. C.G. Muthumanickam 5. S. Karunakaran 6. S. Ganesh 7. S. Pushpam 8. D. Jothibai 9. V. Imbasekar 10. A. Mukthair Unnisa Begum 11. C. Udayakumar 12. L. Hemalatha 13. R. Josephin Vimala 14. S. Vitta Bai 15. C. Elazabath Mercy Flora 16. B. Deenadayalan 17. M. Md. Musthafa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18. V.S. Sadagopal 19. S. Vinayagamurthy 20. B. Venkatesan 21. J. Prakash 22. S. Gopinath .. Respondents 2 to 22 in WP NO. 2832/03 2. R. Thiruvenkatesan 3. A. Kalaiselvam 4. R. Vijayakumar 5. S. Senthil Kumar 6. T. Duraisamy 7. D.Geetha 8. K. Murali 9. M. Ravi 10. A.Vanaja 11. P. Ramadoss 12. R.Govindasamy 13. S.Chakravarthi 14. V. Arumaiselvam .. Respondents 2 to 14 in WP NO. 2833/03 2. P. Sakthi Yogaraj .. 2nd Respondent in WP NO,. 2834/03 2. E. Srinivsan .. 2nd Respondent in WP NO. 2835/03 2. J. Raghavendran 3. Z. Abdul Raheem 4. V. Basker 5. V.Sukumar 6. C. Vengadesan 7. S. Karthikeyan 8. J. Vijayakumari 9. R. Vanitha 10. Ratchaganathan 11. V. Mahesh 12. A. Ashok kumar 13. G. Ravichandran 14. V. Shanmugham 15. K.S. Jayaprakash 16. G. Sureshkumar 17. R. Dhandapani 18. P. Rajasekar 19. R. Karunakaran 20. S. Gopalakrishnan 21. S. Ramalingam 22. S. Saravanan 23. B. Ramkumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24. S. Manikandan 25. N. Suresh Babu 26. T. Senthil Karthikeyan 27. G. Mathswaran 28. S. Sivasubramanian 29. S. Saravanan 30. P. Geetha 31. P.Senthilkumar 32. R. Sasikala 33. J. Sivakumar 34. L. Vijaya 35. C.V. Kavitha 36. P. Karthikeyan, 37. N. Shobana Gomathy 38. S. Subbulakshmi 39. M. Ayyappan 40. K. Satheesh 41. L. Yasida Rani 42. S. Padmanabhan .... Respondents 2 to 42 in WP.No. 9996/2003. 2.S.Balamurgan 3.R.Krishnakumar 4.J.Balaji 5.B.Nandhini 6.Sasikala Muralidharan 7.R.Patabiraman 8.H.Kamal Clement 9.M.Jayakumari 10.K.Prabhavathy 11.K.Venugopal 12.R.Bhavani 13.K.Balaji 14.R.Janakiraman 15.R.Selvi 16.S.Sumithra 17.R.Indra 18.S.Padmini 19.M.Sathishkumar 20.D.Anand 21.K.N.Sukumar 22.A.Mansoor Ahmed 23.K.Sulthan Mohideen 24.R.Gurubaran 25.M.Sivakumar 26.S.Latha 27.K.Amutha 28.S.Umapathy 29.S.Saravanan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30.G.Padma 31.G.Lenin Kumar 32.R.Balasubramanian 33.Kanagasundaram 34.J.Bhuvaneswari 35.M.Ganesan 36.N.Lavanya 37.C.Sudhakar 38.R.Ramesh 39.R.Krishnaveni 40.D.R.Lenin 41.V.Krishnaveni 42.V.S.Saravanan 43.D.Baskaran 44.S.Karthikeyan 45.M.Vimala 46.M.Faridha 47.S.Umarani 48.R.Venkateswaran 49.D.Sekar alias Devarajan 50.E.Prakasam 51.S.K.Venkatesan 52.V.Ramesh 53.K.Dhandayuthapani 54.S.Poongudi 55.P.Seshadri 56.S.Prasath 57.G.Karthikeyan 58.K.Ramadoss 59.M.Sadasivam 60.A.Raghunathan 61.G.Balaji 62.S.Gangaikondacholan 63.S.Amudhavalli 64.R.Prakash 65.T.Parthiban 66.M.Indumathyi 67.Vijayalakshimi 68.R.Gopi 69.C.Kanchana 70.D.Muthulakshmi 71.A.Subramanian 72.V.Poomani Chellathai 73.R.Sivakumar 74.C.Navaraj 75.S.Annamalai 76.S.Venkata Balasubramanian 77.Balasubramanian 78.K.Arokiasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 79.K.Selvakumar 80.R.T.Vijayalakshmi 81.G.Vani 82.S.Palavesam 83.S.Sivasubramanian 84.N.Neppolian 85.P.Pandiselvi 86.P.Kanesan 87.S.Alarsamy 88.G.Murugesan 89.R.Prema 90.P.Muthuraj 91.A.Rehena Banu 92.H.Vijayan 93.G.Nisar Ahmed 94.R.Dinakaran 95.K.Senthilrajan 96.R.Manikandan 97.E.Jagadeesan 98.K.Sridevi ..Respondents 2 to 98 in WP 10059/03 P. Saravanan .... Ist Respondent in WP 30188/2003 K. Sakthivel .... Ist Respondent in WP 30345/2003 T. Vasantha Seelan .... Ist Respondent in WP 34623/2003 R. Rajkumar .... Ist Respondent in WP 2567/2004 R. Sivakumar .... Ist Respondent in WP 2711/2004 M. Nandakumar .... Ist Respondent in WP 2750/2004 K. Magesh .... Ist Respondent in WP 2762/2004 J.A. Mohandoss .... Ist Respondent in WP 3003/2004 Benjamin Joseph .... Ist Respondent in WP 3004/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ N. Baskaran .... Ist Respondent in WP 3766/2004 V. Kannan .... Ist Respondent in WP 3767/2004 M. Nagarajan .... Ist Respondent in WP 3810/2004 D. Mohanraj .... Ist Respondent in WP 4163/2004 T. Chandra Prabha .... Ist Respondent in WP 4164/2004 1. M. Abdul Rakheeb 2. C. Rajkumar 3. R. Vijaya Bhaskar 4. K. Natarajan 5. V. Kavitha 6. V. Ramesh 7. E. Sudhahar 8. V.P. Kumarasamy 9. V. Ponnambalam 10.M. Ramesh 11.P. Dhanasekaran 12. R. Rajeshwari 13. S. Rajalakshmi 14 M. Elumalai, 15. M. Rajan 16. M. Thavamanimuthu 17. J. Suresh 18. V. Leemarosalene 19. M. Valli 20. P. Manivasagam 21 J. Victoria Leyon 22. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai - 600104. .... Respondent in WP 4172/2004 P. Mariappan .... Ist Respondent in WP 4940/2004 G. Muthukutti D/o S. Gangaimuthu .... Ist Respondent in WP 4986/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. P. Balaraman 2. P. Murugan .... Respondents 1 & 2 in WP 5132/2004 P. Chellapandian .... Ist Respondent in WP 6369/2004 1. R.Chandramohan 2. P. Selvam 3. R. Pradeep Kumar 4. D. Richard Pedrick 5. T. Senthil Kumar 6. C.M. Anand 7. R. Balaji 8. R. Raghupathi 9. T, Thinesh Kumar 10. R. Sivasakthi Vinayaga Kumaran 11. P. Rajkumar 12. P. Manokaran 13. Ganasigamani 14. P. Balashanmugam 15. D. Sankar Ganesh 16. J. Saravanan. ......... Respondents 1 to 16 in WP.No. 6424/04 C. Kothainayagi ..... 2nd Respondent in WP.No. 11367/04 M. Francis Solaman Raj ..... 2nd Respondent in WP.No. 21433/2004 P. Muthammal ..... 2nd Respondent in WP.No. 22944/2004 T. Saravanan ...... Ist Respondent in WP 19967/2005. W.P.No.38990 of 2002 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.1131 of 2001 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras and quash the order dated 28.3.2002. Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Certiorari calling for the records in the order dated (I) 28/3/02 in O.A.Nos 1131/01, 862/01, 1149/01, 1137/01, 1138/01, 1237/01, and 1006/01 in WP.Nos. 38990/02, 2832 to 2835/03 9996/2003 and 10059/03 respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (II) 29/11/2002 in O.A.No. 536/02 and 537/02 (in WP.No. 30188 and 30345 of 2003 respectively. (III) 10/2/2003 in O.A.No. 755/2002 in WP.No. 34623/2006 (IV) dated 3/10/2002 in O.A.No. 452/02, 451/02, 454/02, 453/02, 455/02, 456/02, 391/02, 457/02, 364/02, 396/02, 866/02, 553/02, 397/02, 390/02, and 469/02 in WP.Nos 2567/04, 2711/04, 2750/04, 2762/04, 3003/04, 3004/04, 3766/04, 3767/04, 3810/04, 4163/04, 4164/04, 4172/04, 4940/04, 4986/04, and 5132/04 respectively. (V) dated 26/8/03 in O.A.No 1159/02 in WP.No. 6369/04 (IV) dated 25/9/03 in O.A.No 105/2003 in WP.No 6424/04 (VII) dated 05/01/04 in O.A.No 751/03 in WP.No 11367/04 (VIII) dated 22/3/04 in O.A.No 675/03 in WP.No. 21433/04 (IX) dated 24/12/2004 in O.A.No. 681/2003 in WP.No. 22944/2004 and (X) dated 9/9/2004 in O.A.No. 162/2004 in WP.No. 19967/05 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras and quash the said Order in all the petitions. For petitioners : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl.Solilcitor in all the W.Ps. : General for M/s.S.Yashwanth, M.Devadoss, M.Dhamodharan, A.Rajendran, G.Nanmaran, K.L.Nandakumar, Sudharshan Sundar, Sunita Kumari, P.Chandrasekaran & K.Kannan, all Central Govt.Standing Counsel For R.3 & R7 in WP.10059/2003, For R2, R3, R5, R8, R9, R11 to : Mr.Vijay Narayanan, S.C. for R42 in M/s.R.Parthiban WP.9996/03 : For R.1 in W.P.2567/2004, For R.1 in Mr.Vijay Narayanan, S.C. for WP.3004/2004 M/s.Karthikmukundan For R.1 to R.4, R.7 to 21 in WP.4172/2004, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R.1 in WP.3003/2004, For R.1 in 2762/2004, For R.3 to R6, R8 to 10 & 15 in WP.6424/2004 : For R.1 in W.P.34623/2003 : Ms.R.Vaigai For R.1 in W.P.30188/2003, For R.2 in WP.11367/2004 : Mr.P.Rajendran For R.1 in WP.4163/2004, For R.1 in WP.3810/2004, For R.1 in WP.4940/2004 For R.2 in WP.38990/2002, For R.1 in WP.4986/2004, For R.2 in WP.22944/2004, For R.2 in WP.2832 to 2835/2003 : Mr.R.Malaichamy For R.1 in WP.2711/2004, WP.3766/2004, R.1 in W.P.3767/2004, for R.1 in W.P.4164/2004 For R.1 in W.P.6369/2004 For R1, R.2, R.7, R11 & R.13 to R.16 in WP.6424/2004, For R.2 in WP.21433/2004, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for R1 to R6 in R1 in 30345/03 R4, 6, 7 & 10 in W.P.9946/03 WP.4172/2004 : No appearance R1 in W.P.2750/04 : No appearance R1 & 2 in W.P.5132/04 - No appearance For R.1 & R.2 in WP.4986/2004 : Mr.V.Vijayshankar For R.1 in W.P.19967/2005 : Mr.A.Arokiadoss For R.2 to R.22 in W.P.2832/2003 : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan COMMON ORDER DHARMARAO ELIPE, J. Since all the matters are inextricably connected with each other, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants before the Tribunal, who are the respondents herein, are all the dependents of Group-C and Group-D Staff of the Postal Department, who died in harness or retired voluntarily on medical grounds and they all have been approved for appointment on compassionate grounds in Group-C and Group-D posts. They all are working in various leave vacancies and short term vacancies. Since number of vacancies are lying vacant, their services are being utililzed for leave vacancies and thus they are serving without any break in service. The applicants were awaiting appointment in regular posts and were also imparted clerical training by the Department itself. After the judgment of the Apex Court in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA [(1994) 4 SCC 138], fixing the number of vacancies to be filled up by compassionate ground appointment as 5%, the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu circle, issued a letter on 28.5.2001, seeking willingness in writing for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds by other Ministries/Department from the candidates approved for compassionate appointment, who could not be given employment in the petitioner Department since they can also be absorbed in other Government Departments. Accordingly, all the applicants have submitted their willingness giving a choice of departments in which they prefer to be appointed on regular basis. 3. While things stood thus, the Ministry of Communications, Union of India, by the orders dated 25.7.2001 and 4.1.2002, impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Tribunal, has taken a decision that any maintenance of the waiting list of approved candidates for compassionate appointment should be discontinued immediately and since the waiting list has been disposed, this may cause hardship to the approved candidates and in consideration of these aspects, a decision was taken to consider such wait listed candidates for vacancies in the post of Extra Departmental Staff. Based on the said letter, the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, has issued a letter on 6.8.2001 to various Post Masters seeking a list of vacancies in the Extra Departmental Staff. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed a batch of Original Applications before the Tribunal praying to set aside the letter dated 25.7.2001 of the Ministry of Communications, Union of India and to direct the Department to appoint the applicants as Postal Assistants within a time limit. 4. The writ petitioners/Department filed a common counter before the Tribunal stating that the compassionate appointment cases are considered by the Circle Selection Committee, constituted in accordance with instructions of Directorate's Letter No.24-269/87- SPB 1 dated 24.9.1989 on merits; that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment circulated by the Department of Personnel & Training OM No.14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998, it has been clearly mentioned at para 7(f) that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list; the Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. DINESH KUMAR [JT 1996(5) SC 319] and HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. SMT.A.RADHIKA THIRUMALAI [JT 1996 (9) SC 197] that appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose. 5. It is further submitted that by OM.No.14014/23/99-Estt(d) dated 3.12.1999, it was further clarified by Department of Personnel and Training that the Committee for considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground should also take into account the position regarding availability of vacancy for such appointment for a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds are available within a year, that too within the ceiling of 5% mentioned, such cases should be approved; that the quota for compassionate appointment was reduced to 5% as per the decision of the Government of India communicated in Department of Posts letter No.24-170/94-SPB I dated 11.12.1995 with the result number of candidates selected for compassionate appointment are kept in the waiting list; that the proposal made by the Department of Posts to the Department of Personnel and Training to relax the 5% limit in order to accommodate the approved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ candidates kept in the waiting list was also turned down by the Department of Personnel and Training citing the Supreme Court judgment in U.K.Nagpal's case, cited supra, vide OM NO.42012/4/2000- Estt (d) dated 24.11.2000; that the Department of Posts had to discontinue the maintenance of the waiting list of approved candidates for compassionate appointment on the basis of Ministry of Personnel D.O.P.&T OM No.42012/4/2000-Estt (D) dated 24.11.2000 communicated in DG Posts letter No.24-1/99-SPB-I, dated 8.2.2001. 6. It is further submitted that as on date, all the approved candidates already in the waiting list were asked to express their willingness for consideration for appointment by other Ministries, however, it was subsequently found by the Nodal Ministry that the chances for absorption in the Ministries are remote and that there are also not enough vacancies; that keeping this in view, it was felt that an opportunity can be given to such wait-listed candidates who are waiting for some time to be considered for vacant posts of Grameen Dak Sevaks, if they are willing and eligible for the post and hence the Director General (Posts) instructed the Postal circles to offer Grameen Dak Sevaks vacancies to dependents of regular employees (Grade C and Grade D) who are already approved for appointment on compassionate grounds and whose names are kept in the waiting list for want of regular departmental vacancies under compassionate appointment quota as on 8.2.2001; that there is no obligation on the part of the approved candidates kept in the waiting list to accept the offer of appointment as Grameen Dak Sevaks and therefore, there is no arbitrariness in the Scheme of offering Grameen Dak Sevak post to the candidates as their willingness have been called for and they have not been forced to work as Gameen Dak Sevaks; that the averment that there are approximately 1,500 vacancies in the posts of Postal Assistants cadre is not correct and there are only 505 vacancies in the Postal Assistant cadre for 2001 out of which 50% is to be filled up under Direct Recruitment; as appointments have already been made every year upto 1999 in the 5% quota of the compassionate appointments, and the candidates considered over and above the prescribed quota were kept in waiting list anticipating chances of more vacancies and when the chances are remote, it was decided to offer them Grameen Dak Sevak posts taking into consideration the hardship faced by them. 7. Since the Tribunal, has quashed the impugned orders dated 25.7.2001 and 4.1.2002 and directed the Department to consider the case of the applicants for regularisation against the regular vacancies in the grade of Postal Assistants/Postman/Grade 'C' or Grade 'D' posts as per the normal rules and orders governing compassionate ground appointments, the Department has come forward to file these writ petitions and obtained orders of interim stay. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In the meanwhile, there was a proposal to grant one time relaxation to accommodate all the persons included in the waiting list . Before a decision could be taken on this proposal at the Headquarters, the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle had issued a notification to fill up 146 vacancies by direct recruitment and some of the applicants have filed O.A.No.693 of 2004 for a direction to forbear the writ petitioners/Department from making any appointment by way of direct recruitment and that O.A. was disposed of directing the department to take a decision on the proposal pending with the Ministry to grant one time relaxation. Pursuant to the said order, the Department has rejected the proposal and initiated action to fill up further 277 vacancies and the same was challenged by filing an application before the Tribunal. It is also stated that the persons who had applied much later to some of the applicants have been considered for such appointment, while some of the applicants are waiting for appointment in violation of the instructions issued in the letter dated 29.9.1989. The Tribunal, directed the Department to consider the case of seniors, to be appointed, if their juniors are appointed, based on the date of the application. Aggrieved, some writ petitions have also been filed which are also the subject matter in this batch of writ petitions. 9. The main core of the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners in all these writ petitions is that there are well laid down rules regarding compassionate appointment which stipulate that compassionate appointment will be made to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis caused due to the death of the sole breadwinner, who died leaving the family in penury and without sufficient means of livelihood and such an appointment shall be made only on regular basis and that too if regular vacancy meant for that is available upto the maximum of 5% of the vacancies and such an appointment is an exception to general rule that appointment to public office should be made on the basis of competitive merits and once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution the Tribunal and the applicant cannot have a choice to choose a post under the compassionate ground appointments, without considering the good intention of the writ petitioners to offer Grameen Dak Sevaks to the applicants, even though the waitlist has been cancelled, has wrongly allowed the application, which needs upset by this Court. 10. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants before the Tribunal would submit that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case encircling the whole issue and has correctly arrived at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conclusion to allow the applications filed by the applicants and therefore, all these writ petitions filed by the State are liable to be dismissed and would pray to dismiss all the writ petitions. 11. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India would cite the following decisions: 1. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. vs. A.RADHIKA THIRUMALAI [(1996) 6 SCC 394]; 2. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS vs. SAJAD AHMED MIR [(2006) 5 SCC 766] and 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. M.T.LATHEESH [(2006) 7 SCC 350]. 12. There is no quarrel with regard to the propositions laid down therein by the Apex Court. But, in all these matters, the applicants have crossed the stage, which is the subject matter in all the above cited judgments in the sense that all the applicants were selected and approved for a posting on compassionate ground by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per the procedure laid down and they were also provided with necessary training by the Department at its expenses in their training institutes and employed them against leave vacancies and most of the applicants are in employment continuously. Thus, the applicants in these cases are not seeking compassionate appointment so as to apply the norms prescribed by the Apex Court in the above cited judgments, but all these applicants are seeking regularization of their appointments pursuant to their selection by the duly constituted Selection Committee and still they continue in their services and therefore, it cannot be said that these applicants are still in waiting list. Therefore, these cases cannot, in no way, be compared with the above cited cases and therefore, the ratio laid down in the above cases by the learned Additional Solicitor General does not come to the rescue of the case of the