JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quash the impugned order dated 26.2.2014 passed by Regional Level Committee/Joint Director of Education Varanasi Region Varanasi (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quash the appointment of the respondent No. 7 as class-IV employee under dying in harness rule by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interefere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner as attendant (Pariharak) in the institution namely Nagrik Inter College, Janghai, Jaunpur.” 2. The facts of the case are that it has been stated that the petitioner has been appointed after following the due process. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur has refused to approve his appointment forcing the petitioner to file a Writ-A No. 64215 of 2012 (Gulab Chandra Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and others). 3. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Regional Level Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner's. The order dated 11.12.2012 passed by this Court reads as follows: "Consequently, the Regional Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, is directed to take final decision in the matter, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order within next two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that while taking decision in the matter, it should be ascertained as to whether the vacancy in question had been advertised in two well known newspapers having wide circulation and whether the post in question was not falling within promotional quota and it may also be ensured that no class III employee in the entire district of Jaunpur has been working against supernumerary post." 4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 26.2.2014 has been passed which is under challenged in present writ petition. 5. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the order dated 23.9.2014 which reads as under: “Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 26.2.2014 has been passed which is under challenged in present writ petition. 5. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the order dated 23.9.2014 which reads as under: “Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. Sri Uma Kant and Sri Rishu Mishra, learned Advocates, have accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 7. Issue notice to the respondent no. 4 indicating therein that it may file counter affidavit within two weeks from the date of receipt of notice. The State functionaries and the respondent no. 7 may also file their counter affidavits within six weeks. List this case on 04th December, 2014. The appointment of the respondent no. 7 shall abide by the result of the writ petition.” 6. Thereafter affidavits have been exchanged except by respondent No. 7. This Court on 27.7.2018 has passed the following order: “3. Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out an order dated 23.09.2014 by which notices for the Respondent No. 7 were accepted by S/Shri Uma Kant and Rishu Mishra. They were directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks. 4. Later on, this Court again passed an order on 20.03.2018 for filing of the counter affidavit. The Respondent No. 7 did not comply with the order dated 20.03.2018. 5. State-Respondents have filed their counter affidavit to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit. 6. Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 are not present today in Court. There is no request for adjournment of on their behalf also. 7. List this matter peremptorily on 7th of August, 2018 on which date it shall be heard and disposed off on merits even if the counsel for Respondent No. 7 fail to appear.” 7. Thereafter, the matter was listed peremptorily but could not be heard. 8. Today, the matter was taken up in the revised list but again nobody was present in the Court on behalf of respondent No. 7. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observation made on 27.7.2019 by this Court and submitted that the writ petition may be heard on merits in absence of respondent No. 7. 10. The Court proceeded to hear the matter in absence of respondent No. 7 as per order dated 27.7.2018 of this Court. 11. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observation made on 27.7.2019 by this Court and submitted that the writ petition may be heard on merits in absence of respondent No. 7. 10. The Court proceeded to hear the matter in absence of respondent No. 7 as per order dated 27.7.2018 of this Court. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 25.2.2009, an advertisement for filling up the post of Paricharak in Nagrik Inter College, Janghai, Jaunpur was published in 'Dainik Manyawar Evam Amrit Prabhat' by the Principal of the College in general category. 12. The petitioner applied for the said post on 26.2.2009 and after following the due process the petitioner was appointed for the post of Paricharak by the Selection Committee on 28.2.2009. 13. Thereafter, on 25.5.2009 a letter of selection was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 14. The petitioner was working on the post of Paricharak from the date of appointment letter which is on the record as annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was working but no salary was provided to him although there was no complaint against him as well. 15. Since the petitioner was continuously performing his duties as Paricharak but his salary was withheld in illegal and arbitrary manner so, he filed Writ Petition No. 64215 of 2012. This Court by order dated 11.12.2012 disposed of the said writ petition directing the Regional Level Committee represented by Joint Director of Education, Varanasi as one of its member to take final decision in the matter. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid order was served in the office of the respondent on 21.12.2012. The said fact has also been mentioned in the impugned order. 17. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11.12.2012 was in the knowledge of District Inspector of Schools who is one of the members of the Regional Level Committee but in spite of the said direction of this Court and pending consideration of the matter before the Regional Level Committee, he has appointed respondent No. 7 on compassionate ground just to frustrate the claim of the petitioner. 18. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that three conditions which were directed by this Court to be looked into which were also in favour of the petitioner but still in an arbitrary and illegal manner his claim has been rejected. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mrs. Vandana Shukla, respondent No. 7 has been given appointment on compassionate ground which is illegal and arbitrary, thereafter, the order dated 26.2.2014 is liable to be set aside. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit supporting the claim of the petitioner. 21. It is father submitted that after the appointment of Mrs. Vandana Shukla, respondent No. 7, on compassionate ground there is no sanctioned, all the eleven posts are filled up, hence, the petitioner cannot be accommodated. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 23. It has not been disputed by the respondents, that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Paricharak after following the due process of law and when the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to his appointment, the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 6421 of 2012 which was disposed of on 11.12.2012 with certain directions. 24. The copy of the said order has admittedly been served on 21.11.2012 to the Regional Level Committee consists of District Inspector of Schools as one of its members. 25. 24. The copy of the said order has admittedly been served on 21.11.2012 to the Regional Level Committee consists of District Inspector of Schools as one of its members. 25. A perusal of the order shows that three directions which were given by this Court on 11.12.2012 on which a report was submitted which, reads as follows: **e.Myh; lfefr us izdj.k dh leh{kk esa ik;k fd ;kph dh fu;qfDr esa fofgr izfdz;kvksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq fd;s x;s p;u ij foHkkxh; vuqeksnu@Lohd`fr dh izfr{kk u dj ;kph dks fu;qfDr i= fuxZr dj fu;qfDr i= fuxZeu dh frfFk dks gh dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djk fn;k tkuk gh nks"k iw.kZ gS] ftl gsrq fu;ksDrk mRrjnk;h gSA e.Myh; lfefr us ;g Hkh ik;k fd eku0 mPp U;k;ky; us vius ikfjr vkns'k esa izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k esa rhu fcUnqvksa ij fo'ks"k /;ku nsus dk funsZ'k fn;k gSA 1- fjfDr dk foKkiu O;kid izpkj okys nks lekpkj i= eas fd;k x;k gS] vFkok ughaA 2- in fjfDr inksUufr dksVs dk rks ugha\ 3- tuin tkSuiqj esa r`rh; Js.kh ds in ij dksbZ vf/kla[; in /kkjd rks dk;Zjr ugha gS\ i=koyh ds ifj'khyu esa ik;k x;k fd eku0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr fcUnqvksa ij ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd tkSuiqj ds Lrj ls u rks vk[;k nh xbZ gS] vkSj u gh rRlaca/kh i=tkr gh layXu fd;s x;s gS] vr,o mDr dh vis{kk dh xbZA e.Myh; lfefr }kjk dh xbZ vis{kk ds vUrxZr i=kad@ek03@9030@2013&14 fnukad 10-1-2014 }kjk rhu fnuksa ds e/; vafdr vis{kkvksa dh iwfrZ dk vuqjks/k ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd tkSuiqj ls fd;k x;kA ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd tkSuiqj us vius i=kad@9093 fnukad 10-2-2014 }kjk voxr djk;k fd& 1- ;kph xqykc pUnz iztkifr ds p;u dh dk;Zokgh nks lekpkj i= **ve`r izHkkr ,oa nSfud ekU;oj** esa izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gSA 2- izdj.k prqFkZ Js.kh ls lacaf/kr gS] ifjpkyd dk in inksUufr dk in ugha gSA 3- iz'uxr izdj.k prqFkZ Js.kh ds fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr gSA eku0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk r`rh; Js.kh esa dk;Zjr vf/kla[; dh fLFkr ekaxh dbZ gS] bl lUnHkZ esa lwfpr djuk fd tuin esa r`rh; Js.kh ds dksbZ vf/kla[; dk;Zjr ugha gS] tgk¡ rd prqFkZ Js.kh esa dk;Zjr vf/kla[; dh fLFkfr dk laca/k gS] og Hkh 'kwU; gSA** 26. A perusal of the said report it clearly demonstrate that the conditions supports the claim of the petitioner. 27. A perusal of the said report it clearly demonstrate that the conditions supports the claim of the petitioner. 27. The appointment of respondent No. 7 has been done without mentioning the letter number, date and even the name of the deceased employee has not been mentioned. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 also does not disclose the details of the deceased employee and his date of appointment. 28. The District Inspector of Schools, who is one of the members of the Regional Level Committee ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner before giving appointment to the respondent No. 7 on compassionate basis. The Regional Level Committee in the impugned order has only referred to the number of sanctioned post which according to them were filled up only on the ground of appointing respondent no.7 on compassionate ground. 29. This Court while earlier round of litigation has given a direction by the order dated 11.12.2012 to enquire certain things. Pursuant thereto a report was submitted which favoured the petitioner, some weightage should have been given to the said report also. 30. In view of the said fact the order passed by Regional Level Committee deserves to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. It is expected that the decision in the matter of the petitioner will be taken expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in the office of the respondents. 31. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.