Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs Director Of Basic Education U.P. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 41 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 345 of 2020
 

 
Appellant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari
 
Respondent :- Director Of Basic Education U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg,Jyoti Sikka
 

 
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

Being a ward of deceased government servant, an appointment was accorded to the appellant-petitioner on 9th March, 1998 but the same was cancelled on 31st March, 1998. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under a judgment dated 13th September, 2017. After dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner preferred a review petition that too came to be dismissed on 23rd September, 2019.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that an appointment was accorded to the appellant-petitioner in accordance with law and that could have not been withdrawn or cancelled without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that learned single Bench failed to appreciate that appointment was given to the appellant-petitioner on compassionate grounds and as such that was in substantive capacity.

Having considered all facts of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is a position admitted that father of the appellant-petitioner died on 3rd May, 1973 while in service. The concept of appointments on compassionate ground based on the principle of awarding assistance to a person in harness due to death of sole bread earner. The harness existing at the time of death of such government servant does not remain in currency after a considerable lapse of time except its emotional aspect.

In our considered opinion, the appointment given to the appellant-petitioner in the year 1998 itself was absolutely wrong and unwarranted being given after a lapse of about 15 years from the date of death of his father.

Be that as it may, the appellant-petitioner now is of 54 years of age and at this stage, it would not be appropriate to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and its appellate jurisdiction to employ a person on compassionate grounds at this stage. No case is made out for interference.

The appeal hence, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.1.2021

Bhaskar

(Ramesh Sinha, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)