In furtherance to this, a decision was taken on 17th May, 2004 to select only the most indigent persons against the available vacancies within the prescribed ceiling of 5 per cent of the vacancies finally cleared by the Screening Committee.
These appointees, including the respondent in the present appeal, challenged the said order of termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal for short CAT .
48 names were in excess of the quota, therefore, a numberice of termination under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Services Rules, 1965 was issued and as already numbericed, the services of the 48 persons, whose names were recommended in excess of the quota, were terminated.
On 12th January, 2005, the appellants numbericed that the candidates, whose names had been cleared for companypassionate appointment on 13 15th March, 2002 or in the year 2002 were still temporary servants.
The respondent, on 6th August, 2002 was companymunicated the intimation with regard to the approval of his name for appointment to Group D post, which he joined on 22nd August, 2002.
It is the case of the appellants number that the mistake of appointment in excess of the prescribed quota was detected and vide letter dated 12th March, 2003 it was companymunicated that it was number possible to adjust the candidates who were recommended in excess of the quota because the recommendation for companypassionate appointment was to be made on the basis of five per cent of the approved vacancies cleared by the Screening Committee.
The remaining 48 candidates were terminated number permitted to companytinue dropped on 12th October, 2004.
In furtherance to the decision taken by the companypetent authority, a meeting of the Special Circle Relaxation Committee was companyvened and appointment of total 21 candidates on the basis of five per cent approved vacancies cleared by the Screening Committee was approved.
Interim order granted by this Tribunal stands absolute.
The application filed by the present respondent came up before the CAT for hearing on 31st October, 2007.
if fresh recruitment is limited to 1 p.a.
The present appellants also point out that two other applications, being OA No.
The basis for the same appeared to be that about three per cent of the staff retired every year and thus, the reduction in manpower would reduce to 2 p.a.
Being aggrieved from the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition, being W.P. C No.
The CAT granted an interim stay during the pendency of the hearing of the application vide its order dated 8th February, 2005.
On 16th May, 2001, the DoPT issued an office memorandum in view of the policy of the Government of India that fresh recruitment should be limited to one per cent of the total strength of civilian staff.
While allowing the application of the respondent, the CAT held that the appointment of the respondent applicant before it, was number liable to be terminated inter alia, but primarily for the following reasons Therefore, it has been proved and established that the instructions dated 16.05.2001 in so far as it relates to companypassionate appointment, frustrate the very object of the scheme for companypassionate appointment.
Unfortunately, the father of the respondent died on 19th April, 2000.
434/2005 and OA No.
761/2005 filed by similarly situated employees, came to be dismissed vide orders of the CAT dated 20th October, 2005 and 19th April, 2007 respectively.
The father of the respondent was employed with the appellants in a Group D post.
Swatanter Kumar, J. Leave granted in all the SLPs.
On 4th July, 2002, the DoPT issued a clarificatory memorandum that the five per cent quota for companypassionate appointment was to be calculated on the basis of direct recruitment vacancies finally cleared by the Screening Committee and number on the basis of the total vacancies occurring in the Department.
