TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) ON 15. 11. 1987, the petitioners father died in harness. On 22. 11. 1987, the petitioner filed an application for an appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974. The District Agriculture Officer issued an appointment letter dated 24. 12. 1987 appointing the petitioner on the post of Kamdar, which is a Class-IV post. The petitioner accepted this appointment and joined the office of District Agriculture Officer, Ghazipur. It transpires that the petitioner made several representations praying that he should be appointed on a post which commensurate with his educational qualifications. These representations. remained pending for several years and ultimately an order dated 8. 12. 2004 was passed appointing the petitioner as a junior clerk on a class III post. This order was subsequently, recalled/cancelled by orders dated 24. 2. 2005 and 3. 3. 2005, which are impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had already been appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and no second appointment could be issued under the said Rules. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners appointment on a Class-Ill post was not a second appointment but was only a rectification of the original order, which had been rectified on the basis of the educational qualifications and experience which he possessed and therefore, the impugned order cancelling the order of appointment was wholly illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the petitioner was entitled to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. ( 3 ) IN State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC-560 the Supreme Court held" once the respondent accepted the appointment as a clerk which appointment came to be made on compassionate ground, he cannot lay a further claim, for appointment as sub-inspector. It cannot be a case of compassion for all time. " ( 4 ) IN State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994)4 SCC 448 the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal of the State held as under : "though the respondent claimed that he had applied for the post of a teacher the subordinate service Selection Board had not chosen him for the post of a teacher because he did not have the requisite qualification. In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed. The claim for appointment as Inspector was never made earlier. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Hiraman v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1994) 1 UPLBEC-420 in which it was held as under: "so far as the contention of the appellant that once the petitioner Karunesh Kumar Srivastava was entitled for appointments Class-Ill post and on account of any action on the part of the management inspite of the direction of the DIOS when he accepted the post of a Class-IV employee, under protest, if found at a later stage that he was entitled for his appointment as Class iii employee, there will be no bar in granting the relief nor his claim can be said to be barred by principle of estoppel. Moreover, after the death of an employee the family has to pass days in chill penury and beggars cannot bargain. Such acceptance is demand of circumstances, which cannot deprive a man of his legitimate claim. " ( 6 ) IN my view, the said judgment no longer is a good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme court in the case of Umrao Singh and Naresh Kumar Bali [supra]. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision in the case of Surya Kant kadam v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , (2002) 9 SCC-445. In my view this decision is totally distinguishable as it was a case of hostile discrimination wherein two persons junior to the incumbent had been promoted. In my view, this judgment is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, once an appointment has been made on a Class-IV post which had been accepted by the petitioner without any protest it was no longer open to the petitioner to lay a further claim for an appointment on a Class-Ill post. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, once an appointment has been made on a Class-IV post which had been accepted by the petitioner without any protest it was no longer open to the petitioner to lay a further claim for an appointment on a Class-Ill post. As held by the Supreme Court, that once an appointment has been made, if comes to an end and no further appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules could be made. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the authority was justified in cancelling the earlier order. In my opinion, no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. . .