Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1396 (ALL)

Aditya Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025-12-08

PRAKASH PADIA

body2025
JUDGMENT : PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 2. The order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur/respondent No.4 by which the claim of the petitioners for grant of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground has been rejected is under challenge. 3. Facts and brief as contained in the writ petition are that Shiv Kant Pal who is father of the petitioner No.1/Aditya Kumar had been died on 26.04.2021 while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Uchch Prathmik Vidyalay Khairha Development Block Haswa, District Fatehpur and Indrajeet Singh, who is father of petitioner No.2/Yogendra Singh were had been died on 28.04.2021 while working on the post of Head Master of Prathmik Vidyalay Gadhi Development Block Asthar District Fatehpur. Since the petitioners are having requisite qualification, they submitted applications for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, The aforesaid applications have been rejected pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ A No.15450 of 2024 (Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed Writ A No.15439 of 2025 (Aditya Kumar And Another Vs. Sttate of U.P. and others). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 permitting the petitioner to submit an application physically to the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur within a period of one week and District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur had directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order physically, and not through the online portal within a period of three weeks, copy of the aforesaid judgement is appended as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur has passed the order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the judgement and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions being leading number Writ A No.15450 of 2024 (Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others). Hence the present petition. 4. State of U.P. and others). Hence the present petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that in the judgement and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra), it is clearly held by this Court that no compassionate appointment could be granted on the post of Assistant Teachers. The direction given by this Court in the aforesaid order reads as follows:- IX. Conclusions and Directions: 119. In the wake of preceding discussion, the following conclusions are being recorded and corresponding directions are being issued to the State Authorities: (A). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are held to be ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of India. (B). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are violative of Section 3 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 which vests the right of free and compulsory education in children. (C). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are in conflict with the mandate of Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1999. (D). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they provide for appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are struck down. The State Government is accordingly directed to forthwith cease the implementation of the Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013. (E). The matter is remitted to respondents-authorities. The claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents-authorities for appointment on compassionate grounds to any other post as per law and in line with the observations made in this judgement. The decision shall be taken by the respondents-authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 120. The writ petition is finally disposed of. 121. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 5. The decision shall be taken by the respondents-authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 120. The writ petition is finally disposed of. 121. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 5. It is argued that on the basis of the aforesaid judgement, Office Order had been issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj on 22.08.2025 and pursuant to the aforesaid judgement and Office Order, the claim of the petitioners have been rightly rejected by the respondent No.4. 6. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Senior Counsel as stated in paragraph 31 of the writ petition that though the claim of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that no compassionate appointment could be granted pursuant to the judgement passed by this Court but the respondent-authorities had granted appointments to various persons on the post of Assistant Teachers on the compassionate ground in the month of June to September, 2025. It is further stated that in different districts, various persons have been appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers on the compassionate ground in the month of June to September, 2025. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is argued that clear discrimination has been made with the petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur/respondent No.4, it is clear that claim for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been rejected in view of the law laid down by this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra). It is admitted between the parties that the aforesaid judgement has been attained finality between the parties. Insofar as the arguments raised by learned Senior Counsel regarding the parity of other employees who had been granted similar benefit is concerned, the law is well settled that in case, any order has been passed in favour of any person and the same is contrary to law, such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another illegal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another reported in (1995) SCC 745 has held that if the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as follows:- ".... If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that Illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the Illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination...." 9. Apart from the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tinku Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3292 has opined that wrongful conferment of a right or claim on someone would not title a similar claim to be put forth before a court and nor would the court be bound to accept such a plea. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.” 10. Reference for the purpose can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 117 . The relevant extract is reproduced herein below: “31. Another argument was raised while referring to two communications dated 28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on promotion, claiming to be from the post of Peon, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same. A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. Reference for the purpose can be made to a judgment of this Court in R. Muthukumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO. Relevant para thereof is extracted below: “28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. Reference for the purpose can be made to a judgment of this Court in R. Muthukumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO. Relevant para thereof is extracted below: “28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.” 11. From perusal of the record, it is clear that claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that order passed by this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra) and the Office order dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they have not challenged the Office order dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj in the present petition. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners that some persons have been granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers on compassionate ground is concerned, it has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above that in case any wrong or contrary order has been passed by the authority, such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent- authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. 12. In this view of the matter, petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.