At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners: V.P. Sengottuvel, SCGSC. For the Respondents: R1, No Appearance.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of 2nd respondent and set aside the order dated 04.04.2016 in OA No.1779 of 2014.)
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4 April, 2016 in O.A.No.1779 of 2014, whereby and where under, a direction was issued to the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent on the basis of the then existing Scheme for compassionate appointment.
2. Heard the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the first respondent.
3. The first respondent challenged the Scheme framed by the Director, Ministry of Communications, dated 20 January, 2010 for compassionate appointment. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners filed a reply statement indicating that the issue regarding compassionate appointment has to be taken up in the light of the Scheme framed by the Government and published on 20 January, 2010.
4. The Tribunal was of the view that the case of the first respondent should be considered under the then existing Scheme and as such, there was no need to quash the Scheme dated 20 January, 2010. The Tribunal, therefore, issued a direction to the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent notwithstanding the Scheme notified on 20 January, 2010.
5. It was the case of the first respondent before the Tribunal that the Scheme notified on 20 January, 2010 should be quashed and she should be given appointment considering her educational qualification. It was not the case of the first respondent that the said Scheme was not applicable to her. The Tribunal instead of adjudicating the merits of the matter adopted a short cut method by directing the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent notwithstanding the Scheme notified on 20 January, 2010. We are not in a position to agree with the views expressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have considered the merits of the matter before issuing a direction to the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent notwithstanding the Scheme notified on 20 January, 2010. We are therefore of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal.
6. In the result, the order dated 4 April, 2016 is set aside. The Original Application in O.A.No.1779 of 2014 is restored to file. The Central Administrative Tribunal is directed to consider the matt
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
er afresh on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.