DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give employment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Dying in Harness Rules.). Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of petitioner was a Basic Health Worker (Class IV employee) at Primary Health center, Paraspur, district Gonda who died on 1st March, 2000 during his service period while he was under treatment at K.G.M.U. Lucknow. Petitioner's mother has already died on 28.4.1994. Since petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. The sister of the petitioner gave an application for appointing herself as a guardian of the petitioner before the District Judge, Gonda and accordingly she was appointed as legal guardian of petitioner vide order dated 18.7.2000. Later on, petitioner's sister moved an application before the Chief Medical Officer, Gonda on 04.3.2005 for giving appointment under Dying in Harness Rules to the petitioner on his attaining age of majority as there was no one to take care of petitioner. The petitioner became major in the year 2009 and accordingly he submitted an application before the Chief Medical Officer for giving appointment to the petitioner on Class IV post under Dying in Harness Rules. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner time and again approached the authorities concerned and made several representations but nothing has been done so far. The petitioner lastly moved an application/representation to the Chief Medical Officer, Gonda on 6.3.2010 which is still pending before him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a legal right to get employment under Dying in Harness Rules and action of the opposite parties in not considering petitioner's application for giving an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide.
(3.) , Learned Standing Counsel while opposing writ petition, submitted that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and, therefore, his application for employment was rightly not considered. Secondly, an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right because object of making an appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and apparently, in the present case, the petitioner was a minor and was being taken care by his sister. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority in the year 2009 he has claimed appointment under Dying in Harness Rules without explaining any hardship or financial condition and has simply claimed appointment as matter of right. Present writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.;