IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3994 of 2004 MD. JAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 9 6.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government counsel. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent authorities of the Indian Army to appoint him on compassionate ground. Earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ application being C.W.J.C. No.4844 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 18.2.2000 with a direction to the respondent authorities not to keep the matter of the petitioner unnecessarily pending and to dispose it of in accordance with law without any further delay. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was considered on three occasions and merit lists were prepared in which the name of the petitioner appeared in different places in the said merit lists. The stand of the respondent authorities is that due to limited number of vacancies for compassionate appointment,5% of total vacancies being filled up on compassionate appointment at a particular time, the petitioner’s case could not come within 2 the zone of compassionate appointment. The further stand is that three Compassionate Appointment Boards considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and placed him at different places in the merit list but since vacancies were not sufficient for his compassionate appointment, the appointment letter could not be issued in his favour and as per the guidelines the case of any dependent for compassionate appointment could be considered only by three Compassionate Appointment Boards and not thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered in accordance with the direction of this Court. Learned counsel for the Central Government, on the other hand, submits that the case of the petitioner has been considered as per the circular and guidelines issued from time to time and it is, thus, incorrect to say that earlier order of this Court has not been complied with as the only direction of this Court was to dispose of the writ application without any unnecessary delay which has been done. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is 3 evident that the number of posts for which compassionate appointment can be considered has been limited to 5% of the vacancies as per the circular and even if the Compassionate Appointment Board considers the case of any applicant the merit list can only be acted upon to the extent the number of vacancies are available. The case of the petitioner has been considered by three Compassionate Appointment Boards but his name appeared in the merit list prepared much below the number of vacancies available for compassionate appointment and therefore he could not be appointed and as per the guidelines his case cannot be considered any further . In the said circumstances, the respondent authorities cannot be faulted if they did not grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. There being no merit in the writ application, it is accordingly, dismissed. Anilkr.sinha (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)