Palok Basu - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri L.P. Singh. The short facts involved in this writ petition are that the petitioner's father was an employee in the erstwhile department. He had expired when the petitioner was a minor. In due course of time vacancy fell in that department. The petitioner made an application before that department that since his father had died while in service, therefore, U. P. Recruitment of Department of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 was applicable. His application for appointment under those rules was favourably considered and he was granted appointment on 9-10-1991. Subsequently it was found that the Rules were not applicable and there was mistake in his appointment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 6-1-1992 with the specific finding that the Harness rules were not attracted to the facts of the case inasmuch as the petitioner was not having the required qualifications. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) RULE-8 of the aforesaid RULEs indicates that a person will be eligible to be appointed in service while he is major at the time of death of an employee, ii means the day the application is moved claiming the benefits of the aforesaid rules the beneficiary should be a major. It is not possible to so interpret this RULE that a person who might subsequently attain majority can say that since his predecessor had died in harness, therefore, he should be given that appointment. This may be doing injustice to the post as well as injustice to the citizens who may be claiming that post on merits. In extremely marginal cases the appointing authorities may consider the appointment of an heir/family member on the ground of applicability of the Harness rules but it cannot be accepted as a matter of right for those who were minors at the time of death of the employee and gain majority after several years of that death. For, it the bar of "majority" is not applied, an adolescent child may claim benefit under the Rules after gaining majority which may be many many years after the death of the employee. This is exactly what has happened in tikis case. The petitioner's father had died as an Amin in 1971 when petitioner was only about 11 years of age. The petitioner claimed the applicability of the Harness rules when one Ram Murti retired in the year 1991 and was thus appointed as an Amin. The decision of this court reported in 1991 Indian Factories and Labour Reports, page-491 was cited for canvassing the point that in Sushma Gosain's case the Supreme Court has held that the post may be available to & person who attains the majority even susbequently. Neither the facts in the cited case nor the case of Sushma Gosain were similar to the facts in the present writ petition. Moreover, RuIe-8 of the Harness Rules has not been cited in the judgment noted above nor a reference to it has been made. Consequently the observation in that decision are 'per-incuriem'.
(3.) THIS writ petition is, therfore, dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;