1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.11.2009, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5306 (SS) of 2009 for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, namely, Sri Ram Kewal Verma was initially appointed in Class-IV post in Government Girls Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar and during service tenure, he was died on 12.08.1994. The petitioner had moved an application on 25.03.2009 to the Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P. for compassionate appointment but when no action was taken, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.5306 (SS) of 2009 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.08.2009 with a direction to competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation with regard to compassionate appointment. In pursuance to the order of this Court, the opposite party no.3 has considered the grievance of the petitioner but the same has been decided in negative.
4. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner had approached the Principal of the College on 16.12.2009 for compassionate appointment but the request of his mother was denied by the Principal on the ground that she is not qualified for any post being illiterate. The petitioner has preferred an application on 25.03.2009 to the opposite party no.1 but no order was passed on the said representation as yet. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.5306 (SS) of 2009 which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner but the grievance of the petitioner has illegally been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools has also not considered the financial condition of the deceased family. Learned Counsel further submits that while deciding the representation, the District Inspector of School has not applied his mind and passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that while rejecting the grievance of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the opposite party no.3 has also not considered the fact that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 7 years and when, he attained majority, immediately approached but the District Inspector of Schools has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay of making application for compassionate appointment. It has also been submitted that the deceased was the sole bread earner in the family.
6. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention towards the judgments of this Court rendered in Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others; [2015 (33) LCD 8] and Vivek Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others; [(2010) 4 UPLBEC 2776].
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there is no illegality and error in the impugned order dated 16.11.2009. He further submits that the application for compassionate appointment has been made after lapse of 14 years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Governments of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 197 provides that the application for compassionate appointment has to be moved within five years from the date of death of the deceased employee in harness, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compassionate appointment. The family of the petitioner is getting the family pension.
8. He further submits that there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. There is no cogent reason available in the present writ petition for exercising discretionary jurisdiction to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order or issuance of a mandamus to the opposite parties to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable post. Therefore, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was died on 12.08.1994 while he was in service and at the time of death of deceased employee, the petitioner was seven years of age. The petitioner preferred an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools has recorded following reasons:
Þ;kph ds firk Lo0 jke dsoy oekZ dh e`R;q fnukad 12-08-94 dks gqbZ FkhA mRrj izns'k lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh 1974 ds fu;e&5 esa ;g izkfo/kku gS fd ljdkjh lsod ds e`R;q ds ik¡p o"kZ ds Hkhrj mlds vkfJr }kjk lsok;kstu gsrq vkosnu djus ij mldh fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh ds vuqlky dj nh tk;A rRle; e`rd dh iRuh dks e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa fu;qfDr iznku fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] fdurq mlus bl gsrq dksbZ vkosnu ugha fn;k blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd e`rd dh iRuh ifjokj ds Hkj.k iks"k.k esa l{ke FkhA ;kph nqxkZ izlkn }kjk 14 o"kZ ckn e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;kA KkrO; gS fd ;kph 14 o"kZ rd viuh ek¡ ij gh vkfJr jgk vkSj mudh vksj ls fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ vkosnu ugha fd;k x;k blls Li"V gksrk gS fd ;kph dk ifjokj lEiUu gS vkSj viuk Hkj.k iks"k.k dj ldrk gSA ;kph dk izR;kosnu dkyckf/kr gS vr% fu;qfDr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha curk gSA vr% ;kph dk izR;kosnu fujLr gksus dk ;ksX; gSAß
11. The employee on account of whose sudden death, the compassionate appointment is being claimed, had died long back in the year 1994. The question of providing immediate relief to the family in distress by granting such an appointment as is sought for at the belated stage therefore, does not arise. It should not be lost sight of that an appointment on compassionate ground in relaxation of the normal recruitment process is not to be taken as an alternative mode of recruitment. It is granted with a specified purpose taking into account the urgency of the situation.
12. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 akverma