Review petition/application No.51596 of 2018 against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2017.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the review-applicant as well as learned Standing counsel.
Delay has already been condoned on 13.9.2018. On the same date time was also granted to Standing counsel to file objection/instructions against the review application within two weeks. Till date more than a year has been passed and no objection has been filed.
The review application has been preferred against the order dated 7.1.2017 passed by this Court. This was a case of compassionate appointment. The petitioner's case under Dying in Harness Rules, 1977 was accepted by the opposite parties. However, the only bone of contention is whether the petitioner is entitled to any other post except the post of Sub Inspector.
Petitioner says that last paragraph of the judgment was passed with an expectation that the opposite parties will be fair to the petitioner while offering the post under Dying in Harness Rules. The last paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:-
"We feel that the ratio in both the above cases are applicable to the case of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment may be considered but the selection of post will not depend upon the choice of the petitioner rather the opposite parties will be at liberty to offer any post which is vacant and available or can be given to the petitioner that shall be accepted by the petitioner."
Petitioner says that the opposite parties are discriminating in the case of the petitioner while in other matters they have given appointment on the post of Sub Inspector to Ran Singh and Vikrant Tomar. In the second last paragraph of the judgment and order itself these two cases have been mentioned which is quoted as under:-
"In support of his case, two judgments of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.756 of 2006 (S/S) (Ran Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 13.4.2017 and Writ Petition No.59295 of 2015 (Vikrant Tomar and five others. v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 10.3.2017 at Allahabad, have been shown to pursuade the Court."
Sri Akhilesh Kalra has forcefully submitted that the petitioner had applied on 9th May, 2000. The rules of Physical Efficiency Test has been introduced in 2005. He says that that the ratio laid down in the earlier two cases which have been complied by the opposite parties is to the effect that subsequent amendment in the rules will not be applicable to the applications made prior to the amendment. This has been accepted and applied in the aforesaid two cases. The date of application was prior to 2005, hence appointment was given to them under the original rules. In the present case subsequent rules are being given effect to while petitioner's application was made much prior to the date of amendment of the rules in 2005. The argument of the petitioner appears to be correct. Once the opposite parties have complied the orders in Vikrant Singh's case as well as Ran Singh's case, they cannot discriminate with the petitioner on the basis of the same grounds.
In view of above, my order dated 7.12.2017 is recalled/corrected to the extent that the petitioner's case will be considered in accordance with rules existing on the date of making application for the post of Sub Inspector in the light of the judgments referred to above.
The review application is, therefore, allowed.
It is needless to say that since it is a very old case, the compliance should be made expeditiously.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 RKM.