The Allahabad High Court while quashing order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has directed the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.
The single Bench of Justice J J Munir while citing the judgment of the court passed in case of Smt. Neha Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Another has stated that,
“This Court, therefore, holds that in the definition of the deceased’s family, the word ‘daughter’ has to be read unqualified by the marital status of the daughter and it requires no further amendment to the Rules by the Government to make the right of a daughter of the deceased government servant effective under the Rules.”
Fact of the case
The petitioner’s mother, the late Pushpa Srivastava was inducted as an Assistant Teacher in the services of the Basic Education Board and appointed at the Primary School. The petitioner’s mother died in harness, it is claimed on account of a heart attack. They were totally dependent on the deceased teacher because the petitioner’s father and the petitioner both are unemployed.
Therefore, the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, where her mother served. The petitioner asserts that she holds the necessary educational and other qualifications to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher.
The petitioner holds degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education. She has also passed the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 for the Primary Level. But the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has rejected by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj on the ground that a married daughter of a deceased Government
servant is not included in the definition of the family of the deceased under the Rules, as amended by the 9th Amendment Rules, 2011, carried in the Government Order no.6/12/73/2/ 2011- TC, Lucknow, issued by the Government of U.P. in the Department of Personnel, Anubhag-2.
Submission of Petitioner
The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner while placing the reliance on the judgment of case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another has submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Basic Education Officer is manifestly illegal.
It has submitted that that exclusion of married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ carried in Rule 2(c) of the Rules was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. By the judgment in Smt. Vimla Srivastava, the word ‘unmarried’ occurring in Rule 2(c) (iii) of the Rules, was struck down by this Court.
Submission of Respondent
On the other hand, the respondent has submitted that notwithstanding the declaration made by this Court that Section 2(c) (iii) is unconstitutional and void to the extent that it carries the word ‘unmarried’, qualifying the word ‘daughter’, an unmarried daughter cannot be considered for compassionate appointment, unless the State appropriately amends the provisions of Rule 2(c) in accordance with the judgment of this Court.
Case Details
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10928 of 2020
Petitioner :- Manjul Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Bench: Justice J J Munir
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
