Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2333 (ALL)

SUNIL KUMAR v. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, U. P.

2006-09-14

S.RAFAT ALAM, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri R.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Abhinav Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court preferred against the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 13.2.2003 dismissing the appellant’s writ petition claiming appointment against Class III post on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is that the petitioner’s father while working as Class IV employee in the Labour Department, died on 3rd January, 1997. At the time of death of his father, the appellant was below 18 years of age as his date of birth is 27.10.1980. He moved an application for compassionate appointment on 12.11.1998. The authorities having considered his request, offered him appointment against the post of Chowkidar, which is a Class IV post. The petitioner-appellant accepted the same by joining the post. However, subsequently he made a representation for giving him appointment against Class III post looking to his qualification. He claims that he is Intermediate passed with Hindi and English Typing and thus, fully eligible to be appointed against the post of Assistant Clerk which was also vacant in the office of the respondent. However, when the respondents did not consider his request, he approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43415 of 1998, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.1.1999 with the direction to the respondents to decide his representation in accordance with law. The said representation having been rejected by the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 1.5.1999, the appellant impugned the same in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20978 of 1999 which has been dismissed by the judgment impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant having necessary qualification was fully eligible to be given appointment against Class III post. It is also submitted that since Class III post was available in the department, there was no justification to appoint him against Class IV post. 5. We do not find any force in the submission. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant having necessary qualification was fully eligible to be given appointment against Class III post. It is also submitted that since Class III post was available in the department, there was no justification to appoint him against Class IV post. 5. We do not find any force in the submission. The question as to whether dependent of an employee who died in harness, having accepted the appointment on compassionate ground on a lower post can claim for appointment on higher post as per his qualification, is no more res integra and is concluded by a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560 , wherein it has been held that a dependent having accepted the appointment on compassionate ground, his right has consummated and no further consideration on compassionate ground would further arise, otherwise it would be a case of endless compassion. In the case in hand, admittedly, the appellant was considered under the rules and was offered appointment on Class IV post which he accepted by joining the same, and therefore now, he cannot insist that his claim for compassionate appointment on a higher post be reconsidered because of his higher qualification, as his right for such consideration under the Rules stands extinguished. Thus, a person having accepted compassionate appointment cannot lay further claim under the Rules for a better or higher post or for giving appointment of his choice vis-a-vis his qualification. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant relying on Rule 5 of the Rules, sought to argue further that the said rule gives right to such dependent for getting appointment as per educational qualification. We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that Rule 5 provides that an appointment after relaxation of normal recruitment rules shall be given to the applicant if he fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post. This means that the persons who are appointed must possess requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules. It cannot be said that the appointment would be provided as per qualification of the applicant. This aspect has been considered by this Bench in Special Appeal No. 459 of 2004, Anirudh Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and another, decided on 12.9.2006. 7. This means that the persons who are appointed must possess requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules. It cannot be said that the appointment would be provided as per qualification of the applicant. This aspect has been considered by this Bench in Special Appeal No. 459 of 2004, Anirudh Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and another, decided on 12.9.2006. 7. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge. The appeal is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed. ————