Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1723 (ALL)

Subhash Chand v. State of U. P.

2023-07-18

MANJIVE SHUKLA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner through this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj whereby his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that petitioner’s father, while working as Headmaster, died on 02.08.2008 and, therefore after elapse of about 11 years, there is no justification to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on Class III/Class IV post and further petitioner has also not submitted his application for compassionate appointment on the format prescribed by the State Government. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that father of the petitioner, while working on the post of Headmaster in a primary school run under U.P. Basic Education Board in District Baghpat, died in harness on 02.08.2008. 4. State Government has issued a Government Order on 04.09.2000 whereby it has been provided that if any dependent of a teacher who has died in harness applies for compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and if he does not possesses training qualification required for such appointment then he will be appointed as untrained teacher and after such appointment, the appointee shall be sent to the District Institute for Education and Training for requisite training and after completing training, he will be given appointment on the regular post of Assistant Teacher. The aforesaid Government Order dated 04.09.2000 further provides that if the dependent of the government servant possess minimum educational qualification of Intermediate then he can be given compassionate appointment on the posts of clerical cadre in the offices run under Basic Education Board. The relevant portion of the Government Order dated 04.09.2000 is extracted as under : 5. Petitioner, after death of his father, applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of the aforesaid Government Order dated 04.09.2000 and the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat issued appointment letter on 30.07.2011 whereby petitioner was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Suroorpur-Ist, Block-Baghpat, District Baghpat. Petitioner pursuant to aforesaid appointment letter submitted joining in the primary school in District Baghpat and started discharging duties attached to his post. 6. Petitioner pursuant to aforesaid appointment letter submitted joining in the primary school in District Baghpat and started discharging duties attached to his post. 6. Later on, the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat passed an order on 28.08.2012 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from the date of his initial compassionate appointment. The District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat while passing termination order dated 28.08.2012 has said that since on 27.07.2011 U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 have been enforced and, therefore with effect from 27.07.2011, no one can be appointed as teacher in the primary school run by U.P. Basic Education Board unless he has passed out Teachers Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) and since petitioner was given compassionate appointment and he has not passed out Teachers Eligibility Test, therefore, his services are liable to be terminated with effect from the date of initial compassionate appointment. 7. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that the aforesaid Government Order dated 04.09.2000 provides that a person seeking compassionate appointment must submit his application within a period of five years from the date of death of the employee and if the said application is submitted after the aforesaid period of five years then the same will be referred to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj and in turn, the said application will be further referred to the State Government and if the State Government finds justifiable reasons for the delay in submission of application for compassionate appointment then it will condone the delay and will permit the concerned District Basic Education Officer to appoint the said candidate on compassionate ground. 8. In the case of the petitioner, his father died on 02.08.2008 and immediately thereafter petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment and that application was acted upon and petitioner was appointed on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher. It appears that at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, the District Basic Education Officer was ignorant of the fact that after 27.07.2011, no one could have been appointed as teacher unless he has passed out Teachers Eligibility Test and the said mistake was realised by the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat and he passed an order on 28.08.2012, thereby services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from the date of his initial appointment. 9. 9. From the aforesaid, it is patently manifest that the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment within five years from the date of death of his father and the said application was acted upon but due to some legal issue, petitioner’s appointment on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher could not sustain. 10. Petitioner challenged the order dated 28.08.2012 whereby his services were terminated, by filing Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 (Neha Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). This court vide order dated 9.11.2012 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in terms of judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 (Hari Shankar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others). 11. This court in the aforesaid judgement dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 considered the issue in detail in respect of the fact as to whether after enforcement of U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 on 27.07.2011, any person can be given compassionate appointment as untrained Assistant Teacher. This court vide judgement dated 25.07.2012 decided the issue and held that after 27.07.2011, nobody could have been appointed on the post of teacher unless he has passed out Teachers Eligibility Test, therefore, the order by which petitioner’s services have been terminated with effect from the date of his initial appointment is perfectly in accordance with law. 12. This court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 further provided that the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment be considered against existing Class-III/Class-IV vacancies except qua Class III vacancies which are to be filled up by way of promotion, preferably within next two months. The relevant portion of the judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 is extracted as under : “In the present case each one of the petitioners had been offered appointment after the said notification had been published by the N.C.T.E. followed by U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 enforceable with effect from 27.07.2011. Rule 10 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Service Rules, 1981 cannot be read in isolation rather it has to be read in the context, it has been provided for. Rule 10 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Service Rules, 1981 cannot be read in isolation rather it has to be read in the context, it has been provided for. It gives right of relaxation to ex-servicemen and certain other categories, which is inclusive of compassionate appointment as well, but the same has to be in accordance with the general rules and orders of the Government in this behalf in force at the time of recruitment. At the relevant time, N.C.T.E. had already declared educational qualification for teacher to be appointed in school defined under clause (n) of Section 2, which was required along with T.E.T. and it was mandatory requirement. No person could have been treated to be eligible for being appointed as teacher without passing the aforesaid requisite qualification as was prescribed by the N.C.T.E. The 2009 Act and the Rules framed thereunder were clear and categorical. The appointments, which had been made prior to enforcement of the Act, were saved, as the incumbents appointed were required to fulfill the eligibility criteria within five years from the enforcement of the Act and in other cases, there has to be specific order by the Central Government on the request of the State Government, and in the present case accepted position is that after enforcement of the Act, N.C.T.E. Norms and U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, petitioners had been appointed and in view of this relaxation as has been provided for, could not have been accorded. The Government Order in regard to compassionate appointment has been pressed in flagrant violation of statutory provisions, and in view of this Secretary of the Board on being apprised of this factual situation has proceeded to remedy the situation by annulling such appointments which were dehors the statutory provisions. Once appointment of the petitioners was totally contrary to law not at all subscribed by law, none of the petitioners were legally eligible and entitled to be appointed as concept of untrained assistant teacher, is violative of Article 21A of the Constitution as untrained teacher cannot be recruited, as proper training of teacher is integral aspect in right of education being effectuated. In view of this, the Secretary of the Board has acted well within his right to direct cancellation of such appointments, which were contrary to law in force on the date when they had been recruited. In view of this, the Secretary of the Board has acted well within his right to direct cancellation of such appointments, which were contrary to law in force on the date when they had been recruited. Principle of natural justice has no role to play in such matters, when appointments made are dehors the statutory provisions, on admitted position, and it would be nothing more but exercise in futility, as result would be one and the same, and quashing of the order on this ground would be nothing but perpetuating the illegality, i.e. permitting untrained teachers to continue. Petitioners have tried to submit that amongst untrained Assistant Teachers, two classes have been created, as service of only those untrained Assistant Teachers have been terminated, who have been appointed after 27.07.2011, i.e., after enforcement of U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, and the services of untrained teachers appointed prior to it have not been terminated. Negative equality cannot be claimed, and said class of teachers are not before this Court, either individually or collectively, as such this Court is not touching this question and deciding and deciding the said question, and this issue is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. In view of what has been discussed above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. The claim of the petitioners be considered against existing class III/IV vacancies except qua class III vacancies which are to be filled up by way of promotion, preferably within next two months.” 13. From bare perusal of the judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012, it is patently manifest that this court found that the compassionate appointment given to the petitioner as untrained Assistant Teacher was not in accordance with law, therefore, the order terminating services of the petitioner was not interfered with but at the same time this court issued direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against existing Class-III/Class-IV vacancies, as such, it was obligatory on the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner against existing Class-III/Class-IV vacancies but respondents did not consider petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment as directed by this court. 14. 14. Petitioner, thereafter challenged the aforesaid judgement and order dated 09.11.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 by filing Special Appeal No. 2074 of 2012 (Neha Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). Bunch of Special Appeals filed against judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 including petitioner’s Special Appeal No. 2074 of 2012 was dismissed by Division Bench of this court vide judgement and order dated 9.09.2021 whereby the aforesaid judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 has been upheld. 15. Special Leave Petitions were filed challenging the judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 and the judgement and order dated 9.09.2021 passed in Special Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 and other connected Special Appeals but later on, the said Special Leave Petitions were withdrawn with a liberty to file review before the High Court. 16. Petitioner on 23.09.2019 submitted a representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat wherein he mentioned that pursuant to his application for compassionate appointment, he was appointed on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher but later on due to some legal issue, petitioner’s services were terminated. Writ Petition filed against the termination order has been dismissed but the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, directed that claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment be considered for appointment against Class-III and Class-IV posts but till date, petitioner has not been offered appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post, therefore, in compliance of judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012, petitioner may be given compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post. 17. Petitioner again submitted a representation on 20.10.2021 whereby he again requested that the order dated 9.11.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 be complied with and petitioner be given appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post. The relevant portion of the representation dated 20.10.2021 is extracted as under : 18. The District Basic Education Officer on the aforesaid representation submitted by the petitioner, vide his letter dated 06.01.2022 sought guidance from the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj in respect of petitioner’s compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post. 19. The relevant portion of the representation dated 20.10.2021 is extracted as under : 18. The District Basic Education Officer on the aforesaid representation submitted by the petitioner, vide his letter dated 06.01.2022 sought guidance from the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj in respect of petitioner’s compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post. 19. When the respondents, in spite of best efforts of the petitioner and repeated representations made by him, did not appoint him on compassionate ground on Class-III/Class-IV post as directed by this court vide judgement and order dated 09.11.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012, petitioner filed Writ-A No. 11879 of 2022 and this court vide order dated 1.09.2022 directed the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj to decide the representation of the petitioner by speaking and reasoned order. Operative portion of the order dated 1.09.2022 is extracted as under : “Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj is directed to decide representation by reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him ignoring the fact of the date of death of petitioner's father since cause of action to petitioner is very much surviving considering the Special Leave Petition of petitioner has been dismissed in January, 2022 itself and particularly in view of order dated 01.10.2012 passed in Writ A No. 50727 of 2012 filed earlier by petitioner whereby his claim was required to be considered against existing Class III or Class IV vacancies except those vacancies which were required to be filled up by promotion. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 20. In compliance of the order dated 1.09.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 11879 of 2022, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj has passed an order on 20.02.2023 whereby petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment after about 11 years from the date of death of his father. Another reason given in the order dated 20.02.2023 is that petitioner has not submitted application on the prescribed format. 21. Another reason given in the order dated 20.02.2023 is that petitioner has not submitted application on the prescribed format. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner immediately after the death of his father submitted application for compassionate appointment and that application was acted upon and petitioner was given compassionate appointment on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher but later on, the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat realized his mistake that the petitioner, in absence of T.E.T. qualification, could not have been appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher, therefore, he passed an order whereby petitioner’s services were terminated with effect from the date of his initial appointment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that once petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment immediately after the date of death of his father and the compassionate appointment offered to the petitioner was not found as per law and was cancelled then it was obligatory on the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat to process the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post on the initial application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that when petitioner challenged the order whereby his services were terminated, this court, though dismissed the writ petition, but directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post. It was obligatory on the respondents to comply with the direction issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 9.11.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 but the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat did not comply the said direction and kept the matter pending. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned order dated 20.02.2023, under misconception, has treated the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment as fresh claim and thus has rejected the same by saying that petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment after elapse of 11 years from the date of death of his father whereas petitioner immediately after the death of his father raised his claim for compassionate appointment and in-fact the said claim was acted upon but due to legal issue, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, as such, after cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner, it was obligatory on the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on Class-III/Class-IV post. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the last, has emphatically argued that on the one hand due to ignorance of the District Basic Education Officer regarding legal provisions, compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner on the post of untrained teacher has been cancelled and on the other hand Respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post on the ground that application for compassionate appointment has not been submitted within the time limit prescribed under the Government Order whereas petitioner has submitted application for compassionate appointment immediately after the date of death of his father. It has been further argued that once this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against Class-III/Class-IV post within two months, then it is not open for the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat to reject the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the compassionate appointment cannot be given after elapse of about 11 years from the date of death of his father. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has concluded his arguments by submitting that the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj cannot sustain in the eyes of law and, therefore, is liable to be quashed by this Court. 25. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 and 4 has submitted that father of the petitioner died on 2.08.2008, therefore, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post, cannot be allowed after elapse of 15 years, as such, the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj while rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide order dated 20.02.2023 has not committed any illegality. 26. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 and 4 has further argued that after the death of petitioner’s father, he was given compassionate appointment as untrained Assistant Teacher on 30.07.2011 but later on, it was found that the said appointment was not in accordance with law, as such, the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat vide his order dated 28.08.2012 cancelled the said appointment. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 28.08.2012 and this Court vide order dated 9.11.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 dismissed the writ petition in terms of order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 28.08.2012 and this Court vide order dated 9.11.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 dismissed the writ petition in terms of order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 33828 of 2012, Hari Shankar and others vs. State of U.P. and others and thereby upheld the validity of the order dated 28.08.2012 and directed the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner for a compassionate appointment against Class-III/Class-IV post but since petitioner in compliance of the said order has not submitted his application for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post, as such, his case for compassionate appointment was not considered and now after elapse of 15 years, there is no occasion for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, therefore, order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj does suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 27. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 3 and 4 has concluded arguments by submitting that the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioner, being absolutely misconceived, is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 28. I have considered submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties. 29. I find that father of the petitioner, while working on the post of Headmaster, died in harness on 02.08.2008 and immediately thereafter, petitioner submitted an application for his compassionate appointment. The application submitted by the petitioner, was acted upon and the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat issued appointment order dated 30.07.2011 whereby petitioner was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher. I further find that aforesaid compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher was later on cancelled by the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat vide order dated 28.08.2012 on the ground that U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 have been enforced with effect from 27.07.2011 wherein it has been provided that no one can be appointed on the post of teacher unless he has passed out Teachers Eligibility Test and petitioner admittedly was not having T.E.T. Certificate. 30. 30. Petitioner challenged order dated 28.08.2012 by filing Writ-A No. 59648 of 2012 which was dismissed by this court in terms of judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 33828 of 2012 (Hari Shankar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). This Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 upheld the validity of the order dated 28.08.2012 whereby petitioner’s appointment was cancelled but also issued direction to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner against existing Class-III/Class-IV vacancy preferably within next two months. The relevant portion of the judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 is extracted as under : “In view of what has been discussed above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. The claim of the petitioners be considered against existing class III/IV vacancies except qua class III vacancies which are to be filled up by way of promotion, preferably within next two months.” 31. Once this Court upheld the validity of order dated 28.08.2012 whereby compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher was cancelled and direction was issued to the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner against Class-III/Class-IV vacancies then it was obligatory upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class IV post within a period of two months but respondents utterly failed to carry out directions issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012. 32. The Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj while passing order dated 20.02.2023 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on a Class-III/Class-IV post on the ground that compassionate appointment cannot be offered after elapse of about 11 years, has not only acted illegally but in-fact has also violated the direction issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012. 33. This Court is of the view that the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat cannot blow hot and cold together i.e. on the one hand, he has not complied with the direction issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012. 33. This Court is of the view that the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat cannot blow hot and cold together i.e. on the one hand, he has not complied with the direction issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 and on the other hand, he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground the petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment after elapse of 11 years. Once petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of his father, it was obligatory on the part of the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat to offer him a legal appointment but in the case of petitioner, the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat appointed him on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher, though as per law, said appointment could not have been made, therefore, after cancellation of the said appointment, it was the duty of the District Basic Education Officer to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner on Class-III/Class-IV post but he utterly failed to do so, therefore, now it is not open for him to take excuse that 11 years have elapsed and, therefore, petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment. 34. So far as the issue as to whether compassionate appointment can be offered after elapse of 11 years from the date of death of the government servant, is concerned, I find that in normal circumstances when the application for the compassionate appointment is filed with considerable delay then the law in that regard is very clear that the compassionate appointment is offered to meet out instant financial crisis faced by the family of deceased government servant, therefore, where the application for compassionate appointment has been submitted with considerable delay, the compassionate appointment cannot be offered but case of the petitioner stands on entirely different footing as petitioner applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of his father and even he was issued appointment order but later on, it was found that the said appointment of the petitioner was dehors the rules, therefore, it was incumbent on the District Basic Education Officer to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner on Class-III/Class-IV post. 35. 35. The District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat even has not complied with the direction issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012, therefore, this plea is not available to him that case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post cannot be considered after elapse of 11 years. 36. I am also of the considered view that in-fact after passing of the judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012, there is no requirement for the petitioner to file fresh application for compassionate appointment as petitioner after the death of his father has already filed application for compassionate appointment, therefore, the District Basic Education Officer was under mandate of the Court to consider claim of the petitioner against existing Class-III/Class IV vacancy but instead of complying the said order, the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj deliberately kept the matter pending and, therefore, the order dated 20.02.2023 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that 11 years have elapsed, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, thus is liable to be quashed by this Court. 37. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj is quashed. 38. Matter is remanded to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-III/Class-IV post in accordance with the observations made in this order and the directions issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.07.2012 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33828 of 2012 within two months from the date of service of certified copy of this order.