Sachin Sharma vs State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2101 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26970 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Sachin Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Mukesh Sharma
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.B.Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

The petitioner's mother was an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School. She died in harness. The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. The appointments on the post of teachers are now governed by the Right to Free and Compulsory Education to Children Act, 2009. The petitioner does not fulfill all the qualifications under the said Act, and therefore, he cannot be appointed as a Teacher.

The petitioner has been offered a Class IV appointment. He has come up praying for a mandamus that he should be offered at least a post which is commensurate to his educational qualifications, inasmuch as, the petitioner is a post graduate in Commerce. Learned counsel submits that a Class III post can be offered to the petitioner.

There is no post of Class III in a Primary School. The petitioner is not seeking employment in a Government Organization. The petitioner is covered by the Basic Education Staff Rules, 1975 and the Government Orders framed thereunder. In the circumstances, due to non-availability of such a post in a School, no such relief can be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner. Needless to repeat that petitioner's mother was an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School and as such the petitioner cannot aspire for anything more apart from that.

Even otherwise compassionate appointments are offered with a view to ameliorate the conditions of a family that is facing penury after the death of the breadwinner of the family. A compassionate appointment is not offered for the improvement of the status as held by the apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560. This aspect has also been highlighted and indicated in the latest full bench decision of this court in the case of Prashant Kumar Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ESC 221.

The petitioner does not appear to have challenged his appointment as a Class IV employee and has come up for a mandamus for giving him the benefit of appointment as a Class III employee. Accordingly even otherwise, in view of the reasons given hereinabove such a claim cannot be entertained.

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.5.2013/Sahu