Rajasekar.I vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, I. Rajasekar, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents (GST and Central Excise authorities) to appoint him to a job on compassionate grounds. His father, G. Ilanganayagam, a Sepoy, died in service on September 27, 2012. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on June 25, 2013. The respondents, by an order dated November 7, 2019, rejected his application due to a paucity of vacancies. The petitioner filed the present writ petition after this rejection. The respondents' counter-affidavit indicated that a scheme for compassionate appointment introduced on May 15, 2019, involved a relative merit points assessment. The petitioner's application was assessed on this scale, and he received a score of 49, which was considered low, leading to his application not being considered for the limited vacancies. The counter also stated that applications not considered would be disposed of.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents' counter-affidavit indicated that the petitioner's application was assessed under the new scheme of compassionate appointment introduced on May 15, 2019, and he received a score of 49. This score was considered relatively low, leading to his application not being considered for the limited vacancies. However, the Court also observed from the counter-affidavit that the Committee recommended the petitioner's application be taken up for consideration in the next Screening Committee against future vacancies. In light of these observations in the counter-affidavit, the Court held that it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the competent authority, provided he is otherwise eligible and there are no impediments to considering his case in accordance with the scheme of compassionate appointment. The Court did not make a definitive ruling on the petitioner's eligibility or the respondents' obligation to appoint, but rather directed the petitioner to pursue the matter further.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds, considering the scheme introduced by the CBIC on May 15, 2019, and the petitioner's score of 49 on the relative merit points assessment. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued, relying on paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, that the Committee recommended his application for consideration in the next Screening Committee meeting against future vacancies. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, relying on paragraph 6 of their counter-affidavit, stated that the petitioner's score of 49 was relatively low, and therefore, his application was not considered for appointment against the limited number of vacancies. They also mentioned that all pending applications were assessed, and those not considered were to be disposed of. The respondents also pointed out that the initial application was disposed of in 2019, and a subsequent application after a lapse of many years could not be considered.