Heard Shri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner's husband namely Shri Ramesh Singh who was working and discharging his duties on the post of Constable under opposite party no.4/Commandant, 35th Vahini PAC, Lucknow, died on 23.4.2005 during the tenure of his services.
As there was no other member in the family of the deceased to earn livelihood, so the petitioner submitted an application for considering her case to give compassionate appointment under Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974, but no heed has been paid, so for redressal of her grievances, she approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.123 (SS) of 2011 "Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P.", disposed of by judgment and order dated 12.1.2011, on re-production the same reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
Petitioner's husband died in harness. Petitioner applied for a job and she was offered job on the post of Constable. Unfortunately, the parameters fixed for the post contains a condition that the weight of the incumbent should not be more than 58 kilograms. The petitioner's weight is 65 kilograms which is beyond the prescribed weight limit. Vide letter dated December 22, 2009 the petitioner has been directed to move another application for some other post in which the petitioner has the qualification. The case of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment on Constable but other options have been kept open by the opposite parties. As such, the petitioner is being offered a job under dying in harness rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner died in 2004. Five years have passed since then and the job has not been given to her. The petitioner is suffering for lack of finances and she is in dire need of a job. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed orally that the application for another suitable appointment has already been moved by the petitioner and the same may be considered.
Since the opposite parties are acting fairly themselves, no further direction is required. However, since the matter is pending since 2004, the opposite parties are directed to look into the matter and give the appointment on any suitable post to the petitioner very urgently, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of finally."
As per version of the petitioner, in spite of the said order, her case has not been considered for giving compassionate appointment on the post of Constable (M) and no decision has been taken in this regard in spite of the representation made by her. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court with the following main prayer:-
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuss commanding the opposite parties to consider the appointment of petitioner on a suitable post in ministerial cadre under dying in harness Rule on the compassionate ground within a prescribed period."
Learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that once the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No.123 (SS) of 2011 "Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P." to consider her case for giving compassionate appointment in which the order dated 12.1.2011 has been passed in pursuance to which the petitioner has been offered appointment by Commandant, 35th Vahini PAC, Lucknow, but she has not accepted the same any without Rhyme and Reason and she is insisting to give appointment on the post of Constable (M). So, the relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted on the ground that the present writ petition field by the petitioner is second writ petition on the same subject, liable to be dismissed. Be a person cannot claim the appointment on a particular post under Dying-in-Harness Rules.
Shri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, submits that after the death of husband of the petitioner, an application was submitted by the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Thereafter, in response to which, she was called for physical measurement by the opposite party no.4 vide letter dated 23.4.2005 (Annexure No.1) but nothing has been done in the matter in question. Later on, a letter dated 8.3.2006 and 16.8.2006 it was informed to the petitioner that there is no available post of Constable (M) in 35th Vahini PAC, Lucknow, as such, she cannot be given appointment on the said post and submit a fresh application in order to give her compassionate appointment on another post as per her qualifications.
It is further submitted that subsequently in the matter in question a letter dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure No.3) has been written by the competent authority inter alia stating therein that it is not possible to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable (M) under Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974, so she may submit another application through proper channel to Police Headquarter to consider her case for giving compassionate appointment under Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974. Accordingly, in the matter in question a letter dated 4.11.2008 (Annexure No.4) was written by the petitioner, but no heed has been paid in this regard. Hence, the petitioner for redressal of her grievances approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.123 (SS) of 2011 "Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P.", disposed of by order dated 12.1.2011, but thereafter no heed has been paid in this regard. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
Thus, once the petitioner has filed the writ petition no.123 (SS) of 2011 "Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P." on the same subject matter which was disposed of by order dated 12.1.2011, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same cause of action, is not maintainable in view of the provisions as provided under Order XXIII , Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules , 1952 and liable to be dismissed on the ground alone as this Court in the case of Ashok Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2004(3) ESC ( All) 1629 after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others , AIR 1987 SC 88 this Court in paras 15 and 16 has held as under:-
" The issue involved herein had been considered time and again by the Hon'ble Apex Court and practice of filing successive writ petitions has not only been deprecated , but the writ petitions also held to be not maintainable he Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. Public Policy , which is reflected in the principle enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC , mandates that successive writ petition be not entertained for the same relief."
Further, from the document on record and as per instructions received to learned State Counsel, the position which emerge out is to the effect that the petitioner due to administrative reason in the exigencies of service cannot be give appointment on the post of Constable (M) in view of the direction given by this Court dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure No.6) passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.123 (SS) of 2011 "Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P." but offered appointment on some other post not accepted by her. Thus, she again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition to consider her case for giving compassionate appointment. The said plea of the petitioner, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the opposite parties cannot be directed to appoint her on the post of Constable (M) as the said action will be contrary to the aims and objects of giving the compassionate appointment. (See State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560).
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances as stated herein above.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, as prayed, opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner forthwith at an early date in view of the direction given by this Court by order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure No.6) passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.123 (SS) of 2011 "Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P.".
Order Date :- 2.5.2012/Mahesh