R.K.Dash, J. - (1.) I must first express my displeasure of the way the District Judge, Unnao, has dealt with the case and despite the Court's observation/direction, rejected the petitioner's application for appointment in a Class-IV post on compassionate ground.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated thus : "Shiv Prasad while working a 'Pradhan Pratilipik' in the Office of the District Judge, Unnao died of heart attack on 18.6.1994 leaving behind his wife, five daughters and only son, the petitioner herein. The petitioner was then a minor and prosecuting his studies. After he became major, he moved an application on 28.4.1999 to provide employment on compassionate ground. In the supplementary-affidavit he has asserted that besides a small house, he does not own and possess any other immovable property and the family pension is the only source for sustenance of the family consisting of him, his mother and two unmarried sisters. The District Judge was expected to take a decision on his application without any delay, but he did not. So the petitioner moved the Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6331 (SS) of 1999 and it was only thereafter that he, by his order dated 21.1.2000, rejected application mainly relying upon a circular of this Court dated 3rd October, 1994, coupled with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, a Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 5.9.2001 quashed the order of the District Judge dated 21.1.2000 and directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner served the copy of the aforesaid judgment and order upon the District Judge on 15.9.2001 whereafter he, by the impugned order dated 9.11.2001, again rejected the petitioner's application without taking into account the Court's observation and direction contained in the aforesaid judgment. So finding no other alternative, he has approached this Court seeking necessary relief as aforesaid."
(3.) The District Judge, respondent No. 1 on being noticed has filed his return contending, inter alia, that there is no need of giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class-IV because of the reason that nine Courts in the District of Unnao are lying vacant for which ten Class IV employees who were newly appointed have been ceased to work. He has further pleaded that the circular of the Court and the judicial pronouncement of the, Supreme Court reference of which he made in his order restrained him from giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner.;