Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner had claimed compassionate appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rule, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules') as father of the Petitioner died in harness while working in the Police Department. The appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector was denied to the Petitioner as the Government Orders dated 20th September, 2006 and 25th June, 2007 prohibited making compassionate appointment on these posts but the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on compassionate ground. It transpires that subsequently Writ Petition No. 4746 of 2008 ( Mukesh Shukla and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) was filed by certain persons who had been denied appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Sub -Inspector and this petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2008. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition with a prayer that he may now be considered for appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector since the two Government Orders which had been made the basis for denying them appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector on compassionate grounds, have been set aside by the Court.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was left with no option but to accept the appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Constable since written communication was sent by the Department that because of the two Government Orders, he will not be offered appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents states that it is for the Petitioner to apprise the Respondents about the facts by filing a representation which shall be decided expeditiously.
(3.) WRIT Petition No. 4746 of 2008 was allowed by this Court by the judgment order dated 7th August, 2008 with the following observations: I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 1974 Rules provides for compassionate appointment to a person against a post available for direct recruitment in class III and Class IV post. It is not disputed that no amendment in Rules has been made so far. The Respondents also could not show that the Recruitment Board is competent to take such decision which has the effect of amending the Rules which should be adhered to by the Respondents. In order to deny Petitioners' claim in accordance with 1974 Rules as they stand as on date, unless there is an amendment in the rules, the Respondents cannot proceed only on the proposal. In view thereof, I do not find any justification on the part of Respondent No. 3 by refusing to consider Petitioners for appointment directly on the post of S.I./P.C. Under 1974 Rules only on the basis of said resolution. However, it goes without saying that that mere consideration does not confer a right of appointment on the post of S.I./P.C. but it is subject to fulfilment of all the requirements for recruitment to the said post and unless a person fulfils, educational, physical and other qualifications he cannot be appointed on the post of S.I./P.C. under 1974 Rules. In some of the cases, death of deceased person has taken place long back, therefore, this aspect is also open to be considered by the competent authority as to whether after such a long time appointment on compassionate basis under 1974 Rules is permissible or not in the light of statutory rules as well as the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court. With the aforesaid direction both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the Petitioners for appointment on compassionate basis in accordance with law ignoring the above resolution of Recruitment Board, expeditiously without any further delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. There shall be no order as to costs.;