Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 49 of 2023
Appellant :- Santosh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pratap Narain Gangwar,Shashank Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
In Re:- Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application
There is no objection to the delay in filing the appeal on the part of the respondents.
The delay in filing the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The appeal is treated to have been filed within time. Office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal.
In Re:- Appeal
Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Parashar Pandey learned Advocate for the appellant, Sri Shashank Sharma learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 and Sri Apurva Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 5852 of 2022 (Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), whereby the challenge to the rejection of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been turned down by this Court noticing that the appointment on compassionate ground offered to dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the norms of appointment to any public post in the service of the State, which has to be made on the basis of the principles in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is noted that the compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
The stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition was also taken note of wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioner himself is doing a good job of medical representative and his mother is getting a pension of Rs. 40,000/- per month. This apart, his two brothers are in Government job, two other brothers are working in a multinational companies, one brother is running a shop of seed and fertilizer and one brother of the petitioner is a farmer.
Having noted the financial position of the petitioner at the time of death of his father, which was 21.10.2017, the learned Single Judge has opined that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the decisions noted therein, applying the same in the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the observations made with respect to the object and purpose for which appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the writ Court did not find any good ground to interfere in the order denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
We do not find any good ground to interfere in the findings returned by the learned Single Judge for the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/petitioner that the appellant herein had fulfilled the necessary minimum eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Basic Institution.
The submission is that the petitioner had completed graduation course in the year 2006 and had qualified B.Ed. examination in the year 2009. He has also qualified teachers training examination, which is a qualifying examination of the State in the month of December, 2019.
The submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant is that appellant/petitioner had attained minimum eligibility criteria as also the qualifying course within the period of five years from the date of death of his father, which is the period for consideration of compassionate appointment. The application seeking compassionate appointment was moved on 19.4.2017 and there is no justification for rejection of his application as the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the Government Order pertaining to the field.
Adding to what has been said by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, we may note that the petitioner though moved an application within the period of three months from the date of death of his father but could not demonstrate that he had suffered financial distress on account of death of his father, who had died-in-harness on 21.10.2017.
As per own case of the appellant, he was well qualified in the year 2019 and being a major, he could look after himself by doing alternative job to support himself. Though there is a denial to the averments in the counter affidavit that the petitioner himself was doing a job of medical representative, but no material has been brought on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that he has suffered loss of education or job prospects on account of untimely death of his father.
For the above noted added reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
Brijesh
