Allahabad High Court
Smt. Savita vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 615 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Savita
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Backward Classes Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikhar Chaube,I.M. Pandey Ist
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajesh Kumar Chaudhary
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2022 whereby the appointment granted to the petitioner on compassionate grounds has been set aside.
Contention, in brief, is that the petitioner was granted employment on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant under Dying in Harness (Eleventh Amendments) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2014 Rules'). In terms of the said appointment granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to obtain CCC Certificate issued by DOEACC within a period of one year and to achieve a typing speed of 25/30 words per minute in Hindi/English respectively.
It is claimed that the petitioner acquired the CCC Certificate, however, the petitioner could not achieve the desired typing speed which has led to passing of the impugned order recalling the appointment granted to the petitioner.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not achieve the typing speed of 30 words per minute in English, however, she achieved the desired speed of 25 words per minute in Hindi. He further argues that in terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was required to achieve desired speed of 25/30 words per minute, however, the dying in harness rules under which the petitioner was granted appointment prescribes for achieving the speed of 25 words per minute within the time prescribed in Rule 5 of the 2014 Rules.
It is further argued that subsequent to the 2014 Rules coming into effect, the dying in harness rules have been further amended on 27.12.2022 which makes it mandatory for the respondents to provide appointment on the Class - IV post to the candidates who are unable to qualify the desired typing speed.
In the light of the said, it is argued that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued an appointment letter to the petitioner on Class - IV post, which has not been done.
Shri B.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 states that although in terms of the recruitment rules, the prescription of the candidate having requisite typing speed of 25/30 words per minute in Hindi/English respectively could not be achieved by the petitioner, thus, there is no error in the impugned order passed against the petitioner, he, however, agrees that the benefit that flow out of amendment to the rules made on 27.12.2022 ought to have been provided to the petitioner, which is a requirement specified in Rule 5 of the amended rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even otherwise, irrespective of the amendment, the issue is covered by a decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.153 of 2022 (Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.) Dated 09.03.2022 wherein this Court had interpreted Rule 5 of 2014 Rules to hold that in the event the candidate is unable to qualify the requisite criteria for justifying his/her appointment in Class - III post, the case should be examined for appointment on the post in the lower category.
It is argued that in terms of the said judgment passed in Special Appeal, the necessary amendments have been made in the rules, thus, in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vimal Kumar (supra) and the mandate falling place through amendment made by respondents themselves, the present petition is disposed off directing respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner in Class - IV post in accordance with law within a period of three months.
Order Date :- 24.1.2023
nishant
