MADAN LAL TIWARI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Madan Lal Tiwari
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE
Click here to view full judgement.
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. -
(1.) THIS is the second round of action by the petitioner whereby and
whereunder the order dated 30.03.2007 is challenged.
(2.) THE fact of the case is as follows: The father of the petitioner one Late Sri Vatchaspati Tiwari was
appointed at Village Branch Post Master in Purval Gaon in the year 1972.
He died in harness on 01.03.2002. Consequent upon his death, the
petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, however, such
application was rejected by an order dated 14.05.2003. Thereafter, the
petitioner challenged the said order by filing writ petition before this
Court which was registered being WPSS No. 721 of 2003. The said writ
petition was heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court. During the
pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner, pursuant to an
advertisement issued to fill up the post of "Dakpal", applied
intending to participate in the selection process. Before the
advertisement was issued, the petitioner for some time was engaged by the
Department on adhoc basis to serve as "Dakpal" in the same post.
Taking note of the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge by an order
dated 20.02.2007 disposed of the writ petition by passing following order:
"In the circumstances stated above, I deem it fit and proper to
direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for
the post of Village Dakpal in accordance with law and may consider
sympathetically the fact that petitioners father, who was working as
Village Dakpal, died in harness and petitioner had also worked as Village
Dakpal with the respondents as alleged by petitioner and may also
consider to give weightage."
(3.) THEREAFTER , the selection process in which the petitioner along with respondent No. 2 participated was over by selecting the
candidate. The respondent by the impugned order took decision and
mentioned therein that appointment of the petitioner could not be
considered as in the selection process he stood forth amongst the five
candidates. It is also mentioned in the order that direction in the order
dated 20.02.2007 could not be acceded to as the Departmental Rule does
not permit so. In the back ground of the aforesaid fact now it is
admitted position that respondent No. 2 has already joined the post and
there has been no interim order restraining the respondents from filling
up the post.
In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of this Court has been flouted by the
respondent by not carrying out direction given therein.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.