Deepak Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2018 passed by the respondent no 1 thereby rejecting his claim for grant of compassionate appointment. Alleging the rejection order to be cryptic and non-speaking, the applicant has prayed for the quashing of the same thereby directing the CRC of the respondents to reconsider the case by awarding the points correctly. Father of the applicant namely Late Rajendra Narayan Dubey died in harness on 24.12.2014 leaving behind his widow, the applicant and other members of the family. In 2015, the applicant’s mother submitted request seeking appointment of the applicant under dying in harness rules. The respondents asked for certain documents which the applicant supplied to them. However, vide impugned order dated 13.10.2018, the prayer of the applicant was rejected citing that as per the limited vacancy, the case of the applicant could not be recommended and further because he has secured lesser merit points than the last selected candidate. Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the Central Administrative Tribunal^{applicant’s case was considered by the competent authority of the} respondents in light of extant rules and provisions and due to the reason of limited vacancy and because the applicant could not secure cut off merit points, his case was rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the father of the applicant Late Rajendra Narayan Dubey died in harness on 24.12.2014 leaving behind his widow, the applicant and other members of the family. In 2015, the applicant’s mother submitted request seeking appointment of the applicant under dying in harness rules and also the synopsis of the case was submitted to the respondents. The respondents asked for certain documents which the applicant supplied to them. However, vide cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking order dated 13.10.2018, the case was rejected. It is further argued that the impugned order is arbitrary as the respondents have not disclosed the merit points allotted to the applicant under different heads and simply giving the reason of limited vacancy and that the applicant could not secure the cut off merit points, the case was rejected. It was argued that the applicant’s father was the sole bread earner of the family and thus referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 thereby directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit, argued that the applicant’s case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee in light of extant rules and provisions and since there were limited vacancies and also for the reason that the applicant could not secure the cut off merit points, his case was rejected. The merit point of the last selected candidate was 52 while the applicant could only secure 30. Thus, by way of order dated 13.10.2018, his case was rejected. The aforesaid order is reasoned and speaking and no relief as prayed for can be granted to the applicant.

Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts Central Administrative Tribunal^{and circumstances of the case as narrated in the OA.}

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant’s case has been considered by the respondents and it was rejected by way of order dated 13.10.2018. However, a simple perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the case of the applicant has been rejected stating that the applicant could not secure the cut off merit points. The cut off merit points i.e., the merit point of the last selected candidate was 52 while the applicant could only secure 30 points. It is pertinent to record that while issuing the aforesaid order, the respondents have not cared to disclose the number of points awarded to the applicant under different heads so much so that which heads and attributes were taken into consideration to assess the case of the applicant have also not been mentioned. Thus, the order dated 13.10.2018 fails to fall under the definition of a reasoned and speaking order.

Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and relief prayed by the applicant, the instant original application is disposed of. The competent authority amongst the Respondents is hereby directed to reconsider applicant’s case afresh as and when the committee for consideration of such cases (CRC committee) sits again and for that purpose, if the applicant is required to submit any document / application / representation afresh, the respondents shall inform and allow the applicant to do the same. Needless to reiterate, when the respondents shall reconsider the case of the applicant, it must be ensured that the order passed in this regard is a reasoned and speaking one thereby adequately elaborating the marks secured by him under the respective heads or factors that are taken into consideration for such appointments. Further, should the need arise, the applicant shall also be given adequate opportunity to establish his case before the respondents. The outcome of the said meeting and the order passed thereby shall be communicated to the applicant within Central Administrative Tribunal^{two weeks thereafter without fail.}

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.