JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 20.12.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground. The petitioner has further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to appoint him on the post of an Assistant Teacher.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner's father was working as an Assistant Teacher in the institution and died in harness on 11.2.1981. The petitioner applied for an appointment on compassionate ground. Since his claim was not being considered, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 16416 of 1991 and during its pendency, the petitioner was given an appointment on 22.1.1993 on the post of an Assistant Clerk. The petitioner moved an application in the writ petition praying that he should be given an appointment as an Assistant Teacher on the basis of his educational qualifications. The said writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 20.4.2005, directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the matter with regard to the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. The District Inspector of Schools, accordingly considered the claim and, rejected it by the impugned order dated 20.12.2005. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The District Inspector of Schools has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not file any application seeking an appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher on the basis of his educational qualifications nor did he lodge any protest when he was appointed as an assistant clerk. The District Inspector of Schools further gave a finding that the application dated 28.6.1986 alleged to have been filed by the petitioner, in which he alleged that he should be given an appointment as an Assistant Teacher on the basis of his educational qualifications, appears to be a forged document, inasmuch as, the said letter of 1986 refers to a Government Order dated 23.9.1991.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has the requisite educational qualification and therefore, he should be given an appointment on the post of an Assistant Clerk, as per Regulation 105 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act 1921. The petitioner further submitted that the finding, that the petitioner did not lodge any protest against his appointment as an Assistant Clerk is patently erroneous and against the material on the record.
5. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner did not make any application for an appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher on the basis of his educational qualifications. Infact, there was no provision for an appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher when the petitioner's father died in the year 1981 and the provisions relating to an appointment of an Assistant Teacher came into existence when Regulation 105 was amended by a Government Order dated 2.2.1995. Further, the petitioner has nowhere challenged the finding of the District Inspector of Schools, namely, that the application dated 28.6.1986 was a forged document. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not make any claim for an appointment on compassionate ground on the post of an Assistant Teacher nor did he file any protest upon being appointed as an Assistant Clerk. It is also relevant to state here that once an appointment on compassionate ground is made, the said Rules relating to compassionate appointment comes to an end and cannot be evoked again for the same purpose, as held in the State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh (1994) 3 SCC-506.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Sanjeev Kumar Dube v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and Ors. 2000 [1] ESC 635 and Sudhakar Srivastava v. Deputy Director of Education [Secondary] 9th Region, Faizabad and Ors. 2001 ESC[1]-419 are not applicable to the present. facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed: However, there shall be no order as to cost.