AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The Applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present OA challenging the impugned order dated 11.06.2013 (Annex.A-1) by which the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment. The aforesaid impugned order reads as under:
"DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA,
% CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, MAHARASHTRA CIRCLE, MUMBAI 400 001.
REGISTERED
To,
Shri Rameshwar S. Karke,
At-Po-Gomevakadi, Tal. Selu,
Dist. Parbhani.
No.RE/4-7/73/2012 dated at Mumbai the 11.06.2013.
Sub: Your request for engagement as GDS in relaxation of Recruitment Rules.
Your request was considered by Circle Relaxation Committee in its meeting held on 17.04.2013. The CRC examined the case as per instructions from Department of Posts under No.17-17/2010-GDS dated 09.05.2012.
As per instructions on the subject, the CRC is requested to recommend only deserving cases (in which merit points are 51 and above). Your merit points are 37.
The minimum educational qualification for engagement as GDS is VIIIth pass for GDS other than BPM and for BPM it is Xth pass. Relaxation in education qualification is not permissible.
Your case is not recommended for following reasons.
Your case is not hard and deserving.
Your educational qualification is below the prescribed educational qualification.
Sd/-
(S.V. Jagdale)
Asstt. Postmaster General (Rcctt)
% Chief Postmaster General,
Mumbai 400 001.
Copy to:
Postmaster General, Aurangabd Region, Aurangabad - 431 002- for information w.r.. his file no.AR/Stafdf-III/Relax/31/RSK/PRB/2012 dated 12.10.2012.
The SSPOs/SPOs Parbhani Dn. Parbhani 431 401, for information and necessary action in the matter."
The precise fact of the present case as submitted by the applicant is that his father late Shri Salluba, while working as Branch Post Master under the respondents has expired on 24.10.2009 leaving behind the mother of the applicant and three sons. The applicant applied for being considered for grant of compassionate appointment however as the same was not considered by the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No.357/2012 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2012 (Annex. A-2) directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the application of the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with law, within three months. The respondents there in the OA 357/2012 approached this Tribunal vide MA No.925/2012 seeking extension of time for compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2012 and the same MA was disposed of by granting such extension of time vide order dated 09.11.2012 (Annex. A-3).
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance to such direction of the Tribunal, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have not considered the claim of the applicant in just and fair manner inasmuch as the applicant is XIIth pass and he fulfills all the conditions for grant of compassionate appointment whereas the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that relaxation in educational qualification is not permissible and the minimum educational qualification for engagement as GDS is VIIIth pass for GDS other than BPM and for BPM it is Xth pass. In this regard, he invites my attention to the impugned order dated 11.06.2013.
The Respondents have filed their reply and the applicant has filed rejoinder. Mr. V.B. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's claim for grant of compassionate appointment was considered taking into account his actual qualification i.e. XIIth pass and also other relevant conditions i.e. the financial condition of the bereaved family and the name of the applicant was not recommended by a duly constituted committee considering the claim of compassionate appointment as they did not find the claim of the applicant as hard and deserving. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the applicant is right in saying that though the impugned order talks about his claim for not being recommended by the concerned committee for not finding his case as hard and deserving however, in the same impugned order dated 11.06.2013 the respondents also writes 'The minimum educational qualification for engagement as GDS is VIIIth pass for GDS other than BPM and for BPM it is Xth pass. Relaxation in education qualification is not permissible.'
The aforesaid clearly indicates that there is ambiguity in the impugned order and the same also does not show application of mind inasmuch as the same does not contain clear cut and specific reason and appears to have been passed in cyclostyle manner. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the respondents are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.06.2013 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.In the aforesaid terms, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.