Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 2425 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21037 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Ravindra Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 and Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.

The petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 

According to the petitioner his father was posted as Headmaster in the Primary School and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008 and thereafter died on 23.03.2014.  The mother of the petitioner was working as Headmistress in the Primary School Udaipurdipi, Block Khutahan, District Jaunpur and she died while still in service on 12.05.2014. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner's one daughter is studying B.Sc. and his second daughter has taken admission in the B.T.C. Training Course and his son is studying in Class IXth Standard and therefore, his family is facing financial crisis.

The petitioner is 49 years of age. The question is if the one daughter of the petitioner is studying B.Sc. and his second daughter has taken admission in the B.T.C. Training Course and his son is studying in Class IX Standard and he is also 49 years of age how can he said to be the dependant of his mother particularly when he is 49 years of age himself. It does not sound probable that the petitioner was dependant upon his mother. Besides, his own two daughters and son would be dependent upon him therefore, it is ludicrous to suggest that the petitioner is himself  dependent upon his mother.  At the age of 49 the petitioner would have been expected to take care of his mother rather that claim himself to be a dependent upon his mother.  For the same reason the averments of paragraph 8 of the writ petition hardly come to the aid of the petitioner. It appears that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate ground as a hereditary right rather than dire financial straits. 

I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.5.2016

N Tiwari