S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicant in O.A.No.307 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P11 order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 06.09.2013 while in service as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Annexure A2 application dated 28.06.2016 for appointment on compassionate grounds. On scrutiny, it was confirmed by the Department that the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, since there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner at the relevant time in the Police department, the application of the petitioner was suo motu transferred to the General Administration department for compassionate appointment as per Annexure A7 order dated 22.03.2018 of the Government. Since the petitioner did not get an appointment even after transferring his application for a compassionate appointment to the General Administration department, he submitted Annexure A9 representation dated 04.02.2023 to the Government stating his grievances. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

                  “i) Direct the respondents to consider the application dated 28.06.2016 pending before Public Administration department, Secretariat (CE) Cen as per Annexure A2 and A9 within a time frame.

                  ii) Direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the applicant and appoint in compassionate ground as per the terms of Annexure A9 in existing vacancies or next arising vacancies within a time frame.”

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement dated 20.12.2023 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R2(a) to R2(i) documents. Similarly, on behalf of the 3rd respondent, reply statements dated 17.02.2024 and 23.04.2024 were filed, and Annexure R3(a) document was produced. To the reply statements filed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 19.03.2024, producing therewith Annexure A11 document. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed an additional reply statement dated 10.09.2024, producing therewith Annexures R2(j) to R2(k)(d) documents. Again, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the additional reply statement filed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the Tribunal by Ext.P11 order dated 12.03.2025 disposed of the original application with certain directions. Paragraphs 9, 10 and the last paragraph of that order read thus;

                  “9. It is clear from the averments made by the respondents that the regularisation of 123, supernumerary posts created for accommodating the applicants for compassionate employment is not yet completed. Despite this, individual departments are entitled to offer appointments to the family members of the deceased emplovees of their respective departments, based on the availability of vacancies, subject to the 5% ceiling. The appointments made in Judicial Department, as pointed out in Annexure A11, fall in this category. The applicant had made an application for consideration for appointment as Civil Police Officer, but failed in clearing the medical test. Therefore, the applicant is being considered for the post of Lower Division Clerk only. As the appointment under Compassionate Employment Scheme in the Police Department has exceeded 5%, the case of the applicant is referred to the General Administration (Services D) Department for incorporation in the General pool. As per the reply statement filed by the 3rd respondent, the applicant's position is 88 in the seniority list. The date of valid application of the applicant occupying the first position in the said list is 30.03.2013. Since the date of application of the applicant is 13.07.2016, it cannot be said that the seniority of the applicant has been overlooked.

                  10. In the light of the above facts, we are of the considered view that no intervention by this Tribunal is necessary at this stage, However, we do consider it appropriate to direct the Government to give appointment to the applicant at the earliest in strict compliance with the seniority position in the seniority list. It is also directed that any change that might occur in the seniority of the applicant from 88 to any lower position should be duly informed to the applicant. In an earlier order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2585/2019 Annexure R2(j), it was suggested that the Government should make the preparation and publication of the seniority list transparent, so that apprehensions in the minds of the applicants regarding their position in the list and resultant litigation could be minimised. We, once again reiterate that it is in the interest of justice to bring greater transparency regarding the seniority of applicants waiting for compassionate employment.

                  The Original Application is disposed of with the above directions.”

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached this Court with the present original petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner was suo motu transferred to the General Administration Department by the Government, since there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. But despite appointments being made by the Home Department between 2016 and 2022, the application of the petitioner was sidelined. Annexures A14 and Ext.P12 would show that, between 2016 and 2023, out-of-turn compassionate appointments were made from the Police department. The Tribunal did not consider Annexure A14 information obtained by the petitioner while disposing of the original application. The learned counsel submitted that the prayer of the petitioner is to consider his application for compassionate appointment at least in the next arising vacancy in the Police department.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the seniority of the petitioner was considered based on the date of his valid application. After transferring the application of the petitioner to the General Administration Department, his seniority was fixed as 88, and his turn did not arise for the compassionate appointment. While passing Annexure A7 order, an option was given to the petitioner for retaining his application in the Police department, which he did not avail, and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner have no merit.

8. We have appreciated the pleadings on record and the rival submissions made at the Bar. The petitioner has made Annexure A2 application for compassionate appointment as a Civil Police Officer on the death of his father in harness. However, as he failed in clearing the medical test, his application is being considered for the post of Lower Division Clerk. Annexure A2 application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner was later transferred to the General Administration Department for incorporation in the General pool, since the appointment under the compassionate scheme in the Police Department has exceeded 5 per cent. The seniority of the petitioner in the General Administration Department is 88. It is true that, as per the contentions of the respondents, the turn of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the seniority list of the General Administration Department has not reached. In order to refute this contention of the respondents, the petitioner had produced Annexure A14 letter dated 25.06.2024 obtained by him under the Right to Information Act from the Public Information Officer of the Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, along with Ext.P10 interlocutory application filed in the original application. The said document would show that during 2018 and 2024, out-of-turn appointments were given to two persons as LDC in the Police department on compassionate ground.

9. Similarly, in this original petition, the petitioner has produced Ext.P12 information dated 03.02.2024 obtained under the Right to Information Act to show that during the period 2016 to 2023, four clerks were appointed in the Police department out-of-turn. When Annexure A2 application of the petitioner was suo motu transferred to the General Administration Department, stating lack of vacancy to accommodate the petitioner, the petitioner had to wait all these years for getting a compassionate appointment. Subsequent applicants were getting compassionate appointments, as evident from Annexure A14 and Ext.P12.

10. The perusal of the impugned Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal would show that though Annexure A14 document was produced by the petitioner along with an interlocutory application, the said document was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The documents produced along with Ext.P10 interlocutory application did not find a place in the Appendix of the order. So also, Ext.P12 document was not there before the Tribunal since it was not produced by the petitioner. It is also gatherable from the impugned order that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, failed to give importance to the fact that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was transferred to the General Administration Department from the Police department suo moto by the Government and not on his request, which put him in an inferior position. While considering all these aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Tribunal be directed to reconsider the original application afresh, taking note of Annexure A14 and Ext.P12 documents.

                  In the result, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned Ext.P11 order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the original application afresh and pass orders taking note of Annexure A14 and Ext.P12 documents, in the light of the observations in this judgment.