MADAN LAL TIWARI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE
LAWS(UTN)-2012-12-77
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 03,2012

Madan Lal Tiwari Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.