Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37819-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2165 of 2025 Petitioner :- Piyush Bhatnagar Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Singh,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. 2. The Original Application was filed in the year 2014 aggrieved of the orders dated 24.07.2013 and 3.04.2014 for not considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Father of the petitioner along with his mother died due to road accident on 29.01.2012 leaving behind two daughters and the petitioner. At the time of death of his parents, the petitioner was married. The petitioner submitted an application along with death certificate of his father for appointment on compassionate ground, the documents demanded were submitted along with no objection given by the sisters. 3. On 30.05.2013, the Ministry of Communication issued guidelines that married son of the deceased employee was not eligible for compassionate appointment and even the sisters withdrew their consent and required that one of the sisters may be accorded compassionate appointment. Order dated 24.07.2013 was issued indicating that as the petitioner was married at the time of death, he was not eligible for appointment. 4. The petitioner questioned the said rejection by indicating that his application was prior to the guidelines dated 30.05.2013 pertaining to married son's ineligiblity. However, again prayer made in this regard was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the present Original Application was filed before the Tribunal. 5. Before the Tribunal reliance was placed on a revised circular dated 03.04.2014. The respondents, indicated that on account of the amended provision, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the Circle Recruitment Committee in its meeting dated 27.09.2018 and 28.09.2018 but the same was rejected due to low merit points by order dated 13.10.2018, which was communicated to the petitioner and therefore, the petition has been rendered infructuous. 6. The Tribunal after hearing parties, came to the conclusion that once on account of low merit points the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected, which order was not challenged by the petitioner though the same was brought on record by the respondents by way of supplementary affidavit in the year 2020 and was also communicated to the petitioner, there was no reason to interfere in the Original Application and consequently, dismissed the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the Original Application based on the order dated 23.10.2018 and the fact that the same was not challenged. 8. Submission has been made that the Tribunal should have examined the validity of the orders, which were challenged before it, which were ex-facie illegal and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The plea raised by counsel for the petitioner for not questioning the validity of the order dated 23.10.2018 is apparently baseless inasmuch as, the rejection in the year 2013- 14, took place on account of the ineligibility of the petitioner as he was married son of the deceased. Even if the said order was quashed, only relief which could be granted was for consideration of petitioner's candidature. 12. Admittedly, during the pendency of the Original Application, candidature of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been examined and it has been observed that petitioner got only 37 merit points while the last candidate, who was accorded appointment on compassionate basis, had 52 merit points. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner did not question the validity of the order dated 23.10.2018 and even when the Tribunal rejected the Original Application on account of lack of challenge to the said order in the present petition also not a word has been indicated questioning the validity of the order dated 23.10.2018. 14. Once the candidature of the petitioner has been considered and rejected on account of his having lesser merit points and the same is not challenged, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 15. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad