Shashank Gahlot vs Govt. Of NCT And Ors

The applicant is claiming compassionate appointment. His father was an employee of respondent No.3 and died in harness on 14.07.2004. The applicant was a minor at that time. After attaining the age of majority, he approached the respondents for the compassionate appointment.

The applicant had approached the Tribunal earlier in O.A. No.3054/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2017 with the following directions to the respondents:-

"4. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, however, in terms of the above submissions made by both the counsels. The respondents shall ensure passing of appropriate final orders within a reasonable period, but not more than six months from the date of receipt of this order".

The applicant approached the Tribunal for the second time through O.A. No.103/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.01.2018 with the following observations/directions:-

"2.... Accordingly, the applicant herein has not been recommended by the Screening Committee for grant of compassionate appointment. The counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the point mark has not been awarded to him properly. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to provide complete merit chart to the applicant showing the number of candidates vis-à-vis the applicant's candidature was considered and marks obtained by those candidates and also by the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

With the above directions, the OA is disposed of without commenting on the merit of the case. Liberty is granted to the applicant to approach this Tribunal again if any grievance is made out by the information given by the respondents in pursuance of this order."

Ms. Deepika, learned counsel for respondents submits that the directions of the Tribunal contained in order dated 11.01.2018 in O.A. No.103/2018 have since been complied with by the respondents.

The applicant, through this R.A., has sought review of Tribunal's order dated 11.01.2018 in O.A. No.103/2018. The main ground pleaded in the R.A. is that the crucial letter dated 24.08.2004 was inadvertently not placed by the applicant on record at the time of adjudication of O.A. No.103/2018, which he would like to place on record now. This plea of the applicant cannot be accepted. It is settled law that sine qua non for review of order of the Tribunal is presence of any apparent error on the face of the Tribunal's order. The applicant has failed to point out any apparent error in the order under review. As such, I do not find any merit in this R.A. and dismiss it accordingly.

Before parting with this order, I would like to mention that the applicant has already been granted a liberty in the order dated 11.01.2018 in O.A. No.103/2018 to approach the Tribunal if he makes out any grievance after the receipt of the information from the respondents. Availing the said liberty, the applicant may file another O.A. wherein he can also place the letter dated 24.08.2004 to substantiate his claim.

No order as to costs.