Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2861 (ALL)

LAXMAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-09-17

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents who has been unable to receive instructions from the District Inspector of Schools. Sri P.N. Ojha has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. This is an unfortunate story of a dependant whose father died in harness in the year 1997. The issue involved is in relation to compassionate appointment in a Secondary School governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. 3. The petitioner after the death of his father was offered appointment in the year 1998 and again on 19th March 1999 in the respondent institution. Inspite of the said order the petitioner could not join and it appears from a perusal of the impugned order that the post on which the petitioner had been accommodated was being claimed by a Class IV employee to be filled up by way of promotion. The said employee Thakur Prasad filed writ petition No. 12703 of 1999 which was finally allowed in his favour on 11th September, 2003. Thus this litigation blocked the passage of the petitioner in the circumstances indicated above. It may be mentioned that a post that is claimed for the promotion quota of 50% as admissible under rules, cannot be offered for compassionate appointment as held by the Apex Court in the case of Hira Man v. State of U.P. and others, 1997 (11) SCC 630 . 4. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent. He could not succeed in getting appointment in any institution as a result whereof the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4961 of 2007 which was disposed of on 2nd January 2008 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order. 5. Resultantly the District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order dated 29th July 2008 recording the aforesaid facts and expressing his inability to provide any appointment to the petitioner with a hope that in case in future, any vacancy comes into existence in the same institution, the petitioner would be offered appointment. 6. The rules relating to compassionate appointment have now been incorporated in Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 6. The rules relating to compassionate appointment have now been incorporated in Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The said regulations clearly provide that an appointment has to be offered if not available in the same institution, then in any other institution of the District where such post is available. It cannot be imagined that no post was made available in the entire District for the past more than 11 or 12 years. The office of the District Inspector of Schools has therefore been careless enough in not attending to the grievance of the petitioner who has been made to run to this Court on several occasions. 7. Accordingly in view of the rules aforesaid, the conclusion drawn by the District Inspector of Schools, in infinite by putting the matter to abeyance, is erroneous and against the mandate of Regulations 101 and 107. The order is therefore unsustainable. Accordingly the order dated 29.7.2008 is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools respondent No. 2 shall proceed to consider the claim of the petitioner forthwith without any further delay and send his recommendation to the Regional Level Committee within a period of three weeks in the light of the observations made hereinabove and the Regional Level Committee shall take a decision and intimate the petitioner about the outcome of the same. The writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the aforesaid directions. —————