WP(C) 5013/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. I. Hussain, learned CGC. The petitioner is the daughter of late Ajit Chandra Sarma, who was an em ployee of the CRPF. He died on 30.5.2005 while in service as Head Constable (GD) . After such sudden demise of the sole bread earner, his wife i.e. the mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. Her prayer wa s to appoint her as Peon, a Grade-IV post. However, before her case could be con sidered, she became over aged and as per the direction of the respondents, it wa s the turn of the petitioner i.e. the daughter of the deceased father to make an application for compassionate appointment. Her case was duly processed for appo intment as Head Constable (Ministerial). A selection was conducted in which the petitioner come out successful. Although, initially her case was rejected on the ground of medical unfitness but on a review medical examination, she was declar ed fit for appointment. Nothing followed thereafter. While the petitioner was expecting her appointment, she was informed by Annexure-E letter dated 6.8.2010 that although she was selected for appointment as HC (Ministerial) but as no vacancy existed within the prescribed quota of 5%, she should apply afresh for the post of Constable (GD) in the special drive for appointment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid stand of the respondents is a bsolutely un-sustainable, inasmuch as, having regard to the vacancy position and the prescribed quota for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner wa s invited to participate in the selection process in which she come out successf ully. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Annexure-F Standing Order No. 5/2001, which interalia, provides that in case no vacancy exists a waiting list is to be prepared, which will be valid for one yea r from the date of finalisation of board proceedings. Having regard to the said clause, it is the submission of Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of directing the petitioner to participate in a fresh proceeding, her name should have been kept in the waiting list, in case the plea of the resp ondents about non-availability of vacancy is accepted. Referring to the vacancy position, the petitioner has made the following statement in paragraph-9 of the writ petition :- 9. That the petitioner humbly state that after she was informed by the resp ondents that she had qualified the review medical examination she was expecting the offer of appointment from the respondents authorities. But in the mean time on 07.08.2009 she received a letter from the office of the Inspector General, NE S, CRPF, Shillong, Meghalaya to the effect that there was no vacancy in the post of HC/M in the department for appointment on the ground of Compassion and there fore the case of the petitioner would not be considered. It is important to ment ion here that on 23 August 2008 the CRPF authority had published an advertisemen t call for application for recruitment to the 278 numbers of posts of HC/M. The petitioner was called for review medical examination on 23.03.2009 along with th e candidates who applied as per advertisement dated 23/08/2008 mentioned above. Thus it is apparent that there was vacancy in the post of HC/M for which the pet itioner was asked for review medical examination. Therefore the statement of the respondents made in letter dated 07.08.2009 that there was no existing vacancy in the post of HC/M is not sustainable and is false. If the above stand of the petitioner is accepted, it is apparent that th ere was vacancy in the post of HC(Ministerial), for which the petitioner was ask ed to undergo selection followed by the review medical examination. The petition er having successfully undergone the said examination, it was incumbent on the p art of the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner, in which she was selected. In response to the aforesaid stand of the petitioner in paragraph 9 of t he writ petition, the respondents have stated thus in their affidavit-in-opposit ion :- That, as regards statements in Paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition, the deponent b egs to state that, the petitioner was declared fit in review medical and qualifi ed in all aspects required for the post of HC/M . From the above stand of the respondents, it is seen that the specific pl ea of the petitioner has not been denied rather the same has been admitted. Mr. I. Hussain, learned CGC submits that since there is a special drive for appointment on compassionate ground, the case of the petitioner will be atte nded to by the respondents. Mr. Hussain has also produced the relevant record, b ased on which the affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. I have perused the ent ire records. There is nothing discernible to even remotely suggest that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for want of vacancies. It is not unde rstood as to on what basis the said plea has been taken in the affidavit-in-oppo sition. Total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents is quite di scernible from the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit. Under th e head facts of the case as per the respondents, it has been stated that due to shortage of vacancies of Peon, the case of the petitioner’s mother could not be materialised as was communicated vide signal dated 7.8.09. This is absolutely in correct statement, inasmuch as, by the said signal dated 7.8.09, it was the peti tioner who was intimated about non-availability of vacancies for appointment aga inst the post of HC (Ministerial). The affidavit has been sworn by the DIGP, GC, CRPF who has signed the signal dated 7.8.09. The statements made in the affidav it have been verified as true to his knowledge and also as true to the informati on derived from the record. However, the records produced by Mr. Hussain, learne d CGC, speaks otherwise, which has been noted above. The petitioner having been invited for the selection for appointment on compassionate ground and she having cleared the said selection, there cannot be any reason as to why she should not be appointed. The plea of the respondents th at she could not be appointed for want of vacancies (5% quota for appointment on compassionate ground), is not acceptable in view of their aforesaid stand in th e counter affidavit and the disclosures made in the records. Even if there was n o vacancy, the case of the petitioner should have been kept in the waiting list for future employment, for which a special drive has been called for, for the po st of HC(Ministerial). The petitioner having cleared the earlier test, there is no question of her appearance in the new selection. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed directing the respond ents to appoint the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate no t latter then 31.3.2011. Writ petition is allowed, without however, any order as to costs.