High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard M r. S.C. Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, Railways. By means of this writ petiti on, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Tribun al) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the A dministrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The said application was registered and number ed as OA No. 167/2010. The application was filed for a direction to the responde nts to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grou nd. The prayer so made was on account of death of his father while in service on 17.12.1997. His father was working as C/Fitter under SSE/C, N.F. Railways. As i t appears that the OA was dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioner while making the claim for compassionate appointment, had submitted a false Scho ol certificate, a fact the petitioner himself admitted in the OA.

2. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner had earlier filed another Original Application being OA No. 133/2006. The said OA was dispo sed of by order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure-2), directing the Railways to consider the case of the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the authoritie s in the NF Railways and the same was communicated by Annexure-4 letter dated 17 .11.2009. It was stated in the letter that the petitioner had submitted a false school certificate. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed t he second OA being OA No. 167/2010 and the same was dismissed by order dated 5.7 .2010 noticing the fact that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appoin tment by submitting a false school certificate. As reflected in the impugned ord er, the petitioner himself admitted the fact of submitting a false school certif icate. However, he prayed for mercy and in the process placed reliance on anothe r certificate, stated to be genuine.

4. After the aforesaid development and dismissal of the second OA, the peti tioner made certain correspondences with the NF Railway authorities, making pray er for reconsideration of his case. The same having not yielded any result, he f iled another Original Application being OA No. 155/2011, which was disposed of b y order dated 29.7.2011, directing the respondents to consider the case of the p etitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that in the s aid application, the facts narrated above had not been stated, because of which the Tribunal was inclined to pass the order dated 29.7.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.7.2011, which the petitioner 5. had procured by suppressing the material fact, the Railway authority filed a Rev iew Application, registered and numbered as RA No. 2/2011. The RA was allowed by order dated 11.11.2011 and OA was restored to file by recalling the earlier ord er passed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Howe ver, the OA was withdrawn by the petitioner and to that effect an order was pass ed on 31.1.2012. In view of the withdrawal of the OA, same was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner had committed a mistake by submitting the false school certificate but he having explained the circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the OA on that ground alone. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision o f the Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 (Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar). That was a case of cancellation of candidature of the respo ndent therein on the ground of concealment of his involvement in a criminal case . Considering the fact that the respondent was a young man, the Apex Court exerc ising its power and jurisdiction, interfered with the cancellation of the candid ature of the respondent.

7. In the instant case, the petitioner not only submitted a false school ce rtificate for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground but he also approached the Tribunal on number of occasions and while doing so wi thheld the earlier fact but for which the Tribunal would not have passed the ord er dated 11.11.2011 directing the Railways to consider the case of the petitione r. Thus, here is a case in which the petitioner is involved in all round suppres sion of material fact. Firstly, he submitted a false certificate and thereafter approached the Tribunal with suppression of all material facts. It was in such c ircumstances, the Railways had to file the aforementioned Review Application, wh ich was allowed recalling the order dated 11.11.2011. However, the OA was withdr awn on 31.1.2012 without any liberty to file a fresh OA. Compassionate appointment is provided to redeem the family in distress b 8. y way of providing immediate assistance. After expiry of a considerable period o f time, normally a presumption is drawn that there is no need for providing comp assionate appointment. The petitioner has declared his age as 29 years. If that be so, at the time of expiry of his father, he was 14 years of age and thus was a minor. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, there cannot be any reservation for a minor f or compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. Coupled with this the petitioner having not approached the Court with clean hands, the Tribunal h as rightly rejected his OA and we do not find any infirmity in such an approach adopted by the Tribunal. Above apart, the third OA was withdrawn by the petition er without any liberty to approach the Court again.

9. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ peti tion and accordingly it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost .