Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 29068 of 2003, Raj Kumar Pundir v. State of U. P. and others, is being taken as the leading case. These bunch of cases have been filed for appointment on compassionate ground under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The main relief sought in the writ petitions is for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police within a period to be specified by this Court. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are dependents of police constables who died in harness. They are educationally and physically qualified for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. There is no difference in the qualification for the post of Constable and the Sub-Inspector. The petitioners being qualified applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and their claim for the aforesaid post was processed. However, an order is said to have been passed by the then Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), U. P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad Sri Banshi Lal to the effect that the dependent of a Constable/Head Constable would be considered for compassionate appointment only on the post of Constable and consideration for compassionate appointment as Sub-Inspector would be limited to the dependents of Sub-Inspectors or the Officers of higher rank who have died in harness. In view of the aforesaid decision taken by the then Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U. P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad orders were passed for compassionate appointment to the petitioners on the post of constables.
(3.) THIS action of the respondents is assailed on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is also contrary to the U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called as the 1974 Rules). Sri Ashok Khare, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sole reason for classification of the petitioner for being appointed on basis of 'descent' as constable is wholly arbitrary and without any reasonable basis as appointments were to be offered depending upon the post held by the deceased employee. It is submitted that such a decision has no legal basis and the respondents cannot discriminate in appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that no such discrimination is contemplated under the 1974 Rules. Earlier the appointments were granted irrespective of the post held by the deceased employee and the appointment was granted to the dependent based upon his eligibility either for the post of Constable or Sub-Inspector and that there exists no reasonable justification for grant of compassionate appointment only as a Constable to the petitioners particularly when their applications were processed for appointment as Sub-Inspector.;