Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132443-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10716 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shyamakant Ram Respondent :- The Director (Adm) Central Ground Water Board N.H. and 21 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Vijay Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Pramod Kumar Singh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 57 of 2019 (for short 'O.A.'), whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was working as A.D.C.M. in the Central Ground Water Board, Varanasi, died on 04.11.2006. An application dated 23.03.2007 seeking compassionate appointment was filed, which came to be rejected on 12.03.2010 as the petitioner could not obtain the necessary marks to appear in the merit as for 18 posts, there were 38 candidates. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1603 of 2012, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not awarded the requisite marks and that the selected candidates were awarded marks based on false declaration. The O.A. filed by the petitioner came to be decided on 04.10.2012, whereby the order rejecting his candidature was set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's case. After reconsidering the petitioner's case, the same was again rejected indicating that even if the petitioner was awarded 42 marks as he had not disclosed the fact of an unmarried sister, still he does not fall in merit and, consequently, rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the present O.A. was filed again impleading all the selected candidates and with similar plea regarding the award of less marks to the petitioner and incorrect marks to the selected candidates. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and going through the contentions raised in this regard, came to the conclusion that as the respondents have clearly come to the conclusion that the petitioner could obtain 42 marks only and did not appear in the merit, the rejection was justified. The Tribunal also took into consideration the law pertaining to compassionate appointment and noticed that more than 18 years have passed since the death of petitioner's father and, consequently, rejected the O.A. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions pertaining to the fact that the petitioner was awarded less marks compared to his entitlement and that the selected candidates were awarded more marks based on their wrong declaration and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in this regard was required to be set aside. 5. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The submissions have been made by the petitioner in the O.A. seeking to question the marks awarded to the respondents requiring the respondents to revisit each and every candidate based on the claims made by him. The Tribunal, on the first occasion, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. On the plea raised pertaining to award of less marks on account of availability of an unmarried sister, five marks were sought to be awarded by the respondents, however, despite the same, the petitioner could not obtain the requisite marks as the last selected candidate had obtained 49 marks and, in those circumstances, the claim made was rejected. 8. So far as the plea pertaining to the claim made and the marks awarded to the selected candidates is concerned, the respondents based on the material produced before them, have awarded the marks, there is apparently no requirement with regard to the respondents examining the validity of the documentary evidence produced by the respondents pertaining to the income etc. of the candidates who have applied, specially pertaining to the suppressed income and, therefore, the plea raised regarding the respondents, awarding more marks to the candidates based on the suppression has rightly not been countenanced by the Tribunal. 9. Though the petitioner was contesting his claim since the rejection in the year 2010, still Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others: AIR 2023 SC 1467 has come to the conclusion that even in such cases the fact that the considerable long time has passed since death of the bread earner, the cause for seeking compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. There is no substance in the petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 RK/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad