ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. The father of the petitioner, Principal of National Inter mediate College, Bharwari, District Al lahabad, died on 30-4-1987 while in service. The petitioner, who is a dependent of the deceased-father applied for appoint ment on compassionate ground and was appointed as clerk in the College under the Dying in Harness Rules on 2-5-1988 and since then is working on the said post in the College and the Rules were amended by Notification dated 2-2-1995 providing that the dependent of an employee dying in harness can be ap pointed as Assistant Teacher. Having eligibility and qualification, the petitioner submitted application on 24-4-1995 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade to the District In spector of Schools, Allahabad. The com mittee of management of the institution passed resolution and recommended ap pointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade and the same was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. After repeated reminders the District Inspector of Schools passed order dated 7-1-1997 refusing approval of petitioners appoint ment and his case was rejected, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. Challenging the said order this writ petition was filed. 2. As only a question of law has been raised as to whether the Government Order dated 2-2-1995 extends a right to the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 agreed to final disposal of the writ petition without tiling a counter-af fidavit. As the committee of management of the institution, the respondent No. 5 has already passed resolution in favour of the petitioner does not seek relief against the said respondent. Therefore, the par ties agreed to final disposal at this stage. 3. Regulations 101 to 107 were intro duced in the Regulation framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 by Notification dated 30-7-1992. Regulation 102 of the aforesaid Regulation provided for compassionate appointment in respect of non-teaching posts in case any member of teaching or non-teaching staff of recog nised aided institution died in harness and dependent candidate for such compassionate appointment was 18 years of age or more and was having requisite educational qualification and otherwise fit for such appointment. 4. Regulation 102 of the aforesaid Regulation provided for compassionate appointment in respect of non-teaching posts in case any member of teaching or non-teaching staff of recog nised aided institution died in harness and dependent candidate for such compassionate appointment was 18 years of age or more and was having requisite educational qualification and otherwise fit for such appointment. 4. By afore said notification dated 2-2-1995 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ peti tion) the aforesaid Regulation 103 was amended. The relevant portion of such amendment provided for appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade or in the post of Lecturer or in the post of non-teaching post depending on the educational and training qualification of the dependent of the deceased. As regards the afore said amendment, there is no dis pute between the parties herein. 5. Dispute has been raised in respect of the right of the petitioner as to whether in the writ petition on the basis of provisions contained in the note ap pended to the said Regulation 103 which provided that the said Regulation would be applicable in respect of those employees whose death occurred on or after 1-1-1981. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the aforesaid Note to Regulation 103 and contended that the same per mitted appointment of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade as the petitioner is having due qualifica tion for such post and the death of petitioners father took place after 1-1-1981. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said Note makes the provision of Regulation 102 applicable in the case of employees who died on or after 1-1-1981 and the said provision apparently is retrospectively in operation and the petitioner having been covered by the said provision, is entitled to such appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade. It is stated that when the petitioner was given appointment in the post of clerk on 2-5-1988 the aforesaid amended provision of Regulation 102 was not avail able and as such the appointment could not be made on the post of Assistani Teacher. It is stated that in the circumstan ces then prevailing the petitioner joined the post of clerk as he was not having and other alternative remedy. It is stated that in the circumstan ces then prevailing the petitioner joined the post of clerk as he was not having and other alternative remedy. Now amended provision of Regulation 103 having beer made retrospective the petitioner is en titled to relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, Navin Kumar Upadhyay v. Director of Education, decided by this Court on 17-5-1993 holding that the dependent of a deceased having due qualification is entitled to get appoint ment in Class-lll post and appointing him against a Class-IV post in spite of his having qualification was illegal. Such find ing was arrived at upon an interpretation of Regulation 103 as it then stood provid ing for compassionate appointment only against non-teaching posts. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said judgment was affirmed in the Spe cial Leave Petition No. 18247 of 1993 by order dated 17-12- 1993. 9. Mr. Pushpendra Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nps. 1 to 4 contended that once the petitioner was appointed in the post of clerk on compassionate ground, the process came to an end and there can not be any further appointment on com passionate ground on the basis of aforesaid notification dated 2-2-1995. In support of such contention learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel relied on the law decided in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 560 and the State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, reported in J. T. 1996 (6) SC 7 and relying in the aforesaid law it has been contended by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for by him. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also relied on a copy of the judgment produced in the case of Gajendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4647 of 1996, decided on 6-2-1996. 10. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel also referred to the letter dated 16-8-1996 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Education Director settling the principle to be followed in view of the aforesaid amendment by notification dated 2-2-1995. 11. Writ Petition No. 4647 of 1996, decided on 6-2-1996. 10. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel also referred to the letter dated 16-8-1996 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Education Director settling the principle to be followed in view of the aforesaid amendment by notification dated 2-2-1995. 11. After considering the contentions of the respective parties and considering the Regulation 103 as amended, I find that the said amendment provided for appoint ment on compassionate ground also in the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T grade and Lecturers. The Note appended to the said Regulation makes it clear that the said Regulation was to be applied in the case of employees who died on or after 1-1-1981. But, a thorough reading of the said Regulation and the Note appended there to does not indicate that it will also apply in case of a dependent of an employee dying in harness when such dependent has already been given appointment in a non-teaching post as per the earlier prevailing Regulation. The Note appended to the said Regulation 103 only indicates that the said Regulation would apply in respect of those cases where the matter of compas sionate appointment is still pending and the death occurred on 1-1-1981 or there after. Apparently, the said cut off date was fixed as the Government Order providing for compassionate appointment for the first time, was issued on 1-1-1981. There fore, there may be proceeding pending in any court of law or before any appropriate authority wherein a claim for compas sionate appointment has been made on the basis of law entitling any dependent to such appointment. The contention of the petitioner that any candidate who has al ready been appointed in terms of the ear lier prevailing Regulation 103 against a non-teaching post may also raise a claim in a teachers post, if the candidate has qualification for such post in view of the expression used in the note, in not accept able, as the law in this connection has been settled in various cases. In this connection observation of the apex Court made in the aforesaid case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh (supra) is relevant and the same runs as follows: "he accepted the appointment as L. D. C. Therefore right to be considered for appoint ment on compassionate ground was consum mated. In this connection observation of the apex Court made in the aforesaid case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh (supra) is relevant and the same runs as follows: "he accepted the appointment as L. D. C. Therefore right to be considered for appoint ment on compassionate ground was consum mated. No further consideration on compas sionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of endless compass on. " The case of Naveen Kumar Kumar Upadhya (supra) does not support the contention of the petitioner as in the said case the Court was considering the cor rectness of the appointment itself on an interpretation of Regulation 103 as it then stood. On an interpretation of Regulation 103 it was held by this Court that the ap pointment could be possible to depend ents of employees dying in harness in non-teaching posts and such non-teaching posts are of two categories namely Class-Ill and Class-IV posts. In such back ground, it was held by this Court that when the candidate is considered for compas sionate appointment and he is having due qualification for Class-Ill post, the authorities can not deprive him of ap pointment in Class III post by appointing him on any Class-IV post. In such back ground, this Court directed the authority to consider the case of the petitioner therein for appointment in Class-Ill post. But, in the present case, on the date the appointment was given to the present petitioner rules permitted appointment up to Class-Ill post and as such, such ap pointment was rightly given to the present petitioner on compassionate ground. Therefore, on application. 01 law, as decided by the apex Court, the right of the petitioner has consummated and second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassionate would not arise. Therefore, the principle applied in the case of Naveen Kumar Upadhya (supra) will not apply in the case of the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid findings the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .