IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.6087/2018(S-CAT) BETWEEN SMT T.DHANALAKSHMI W/O. LATE. J KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 6, 24TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU - 560002 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT .M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE ZONE, C.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, POST BOX NO. 5400, BENGALURU -560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE -1 COMMISSIONERATE, C.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, POST BOX NO. 5400, BENGALURU 560001 3. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H JAYAKARA SHETTY, CGC FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2014 PASSED IN OA.NO.36/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicant in O.A.No.36/2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) Bengaluru Bench, has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 18.08.2014 in dismissing her application. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a widow of J.Krishna Murthy, who was working as Supervisor (Telecom) in the Department of Respondents-1 and 2. It is stated that he died on 19.09.2007 leaving him surviving his widow and two minor sons. Thereafter, the petitioner herein, widow of J.Krishnamurthy submitted an application on 22.06.2009 seeking appointment on compassionate ground since her education qualification was SSLC, her case could be considered for the post of ‘Sepoy’.
2. Accordingly, she was called upon for an interview where it was found that she would not meet required physical fitness standard for appointment to the post of ‘Sepoy’. Hence, her application was rejected, which was the subject matter before the Tribunal in O.A.No.36/2013. It is seen that the Tribunal after considering the grounds urged by the petitioner herein challenging rejection of her application dated 30.01.2012, dismissed the application confirming the same on the ground that admittedly the petitioner does not meet required physical fitness standard i.e., with reference to height for appointment for the post of ‘Sepoy’. Hence, it was observed that the order of rejection of her application cannot be interfered with.
3. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal in rejecting her application in O.A.No.36/2013 by order dated 18.08.2014 is the subject matter of this writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Subramanya Bhat and Sri H.Jayakarashetty, learned Central Government Counsel for respondents-1 to 3.
5. Perused the grounds urged with reference to the findings rendered by the Tribunal in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. On going through the same, it is seen that the required physical fitness standard being mandatory for considering the application of the petitioner for the post of ‘Sepoy’, since the petitioner is not meeting the required standard, question of interfering with the order of the Tribunal does not arise. At the same time, when the material on record is looked into, it would clearly disclose that a widow saddled with the responsibility of maintaining two minor children, respondents-1 and 2 is required to be provided with suitable appointment on the basis of her SSLC qualification for the survival of herself and two minor children.
6. Sri Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are certain posts which are available in the Department of respondents-1 and 2 under MTS category where physical fitness standard is not mandatory as in the case of ‘Sepoy’. He would further submit that if the petitioner could be accommodated in any of the post available under the said category, it will be helpful for survival of the petitioner and her minor children who does not have any other source of income.
7. Under the foregoing circumstance, on the basis of aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would observe that in the event of there being any vacancy arising under MTS category or any other similar category where physical fitness standard is not mandatory, the case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment under compassionate grounds provided the rule permits for such appointment to her.
With aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE TL