IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10745 of 2006 Ashok Prasad, son of late Premchand Prasad, resident of village- Seyadih, P.O. Seyadih, District- Bhojpur (Bihar) ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, Chief of Army, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi 3. The Chief Engineer, Head Quarter, Shilong, Zone, Spread Eagle Falls, Shillong 4. The Commander Works Engineer, Shillong 5. The Garrison Engineer, Umroi, Umroi Military Station, Shillong ………… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. D.K.Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents: None. ----------- 2. 15.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the Central Government although the name of learned counsel appears in the daily cause list. However, counter affidavit on behalf of respondent-Union of India is already on the record. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in letter dated 25.1.2005 (Annexure-4) by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 15.7.2002 upon the death of his father while still in service on 1.5.2002. The same has been rejected by the impugned letter dated 25.1.2005. In the letter of rejection it is stated that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment prevailing in the Army 5% of the total direct recruitment vacancies occurring in a year in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts are made available for appointment on compassionate ground and since the vacancies available for such appointment are very limited a Board of Officers is constituted at the - 2 - Headquarters to find out the most deserving cases in acute financial distress/more indigent in comparison to other similarly placed cases. The matter is considered on the basis of various aspects including ages of children, amount of terminal benefits, amount of family pension, liability in terms of unmarried daughter(s), minor children etc., movable/immovable properties left by the deceased at the time of death in order to arrive at the conclusion of really deserving case and only on availability of clear vacancy the appointments on compassionate ground are granted. In the counter affidavit details of consideration of the case of the petitioner has been brought out in Annexure-C dated 12.10.2006 in which it is pointed out that for the quarter ending March 2003, December 2003, March 2004 and June 2004, with respect to which the case of the petitioner was considered on four different occasions, the number of vacancies were only 3,2,4 and 3 respectively while the rank of the petitioner on the basis of the points awarded to him and to others was 6,27,35 and 35 respectively in the said quarters. In the said circumstances, the petitioner’s case was not found fit for recommendation within the limit of vacancies available as compared to his rank at the time of assessment made for the said quarters. Hence the letter dated 25.1.2005 rejecting his case was communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the certificate regarding availability of vacancy as contained in Annexure- 5 dated 5.12.2002 under which as many as 85 vacancies on the post of - 3 - Majdoor at Umroi were available. The said certificate can be of no assistance to the petitioner in view of the fact that only five per cent vacancies have been set apart in terms of the scheme applicable to the Army for appointment on compassionate ground. From the records of the case it is evident that the case of the petitioner has been considered in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment in the Army and he was not found fit for appointment in view of the parameters laid down in the said scheme. Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)