S.H.A. Raza, B.K. Singh, JJ. - (1.) A short point involved in this writ petition is that the father of the petitioner was an employee of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 was working on the post of Lekhadhar, had expired during the service period on 28-1-1990 leaving the petitioner as his only son. the other two sons are minor. It has been contended that no member of the petitioner's family is in service and after the demise of the father, the entire family has been facing great financial trouble. He also requested for his appointment on any post suitable to his qualification.
(2.) In the counter-affidavit it has been averred that the Management Committee of the College has written to the Director of the Higher Education their letter dated 22nd September, 1992 for creation of various posts including four posts of routine clerk. A telegram was also sent to the Director by same to expedite the creating of the posts. In absence of any post it has been submitted that the petitioner cannot be appointed. The State of Uttar Pradesh has issued various Government Orders by means of which the Management of the Colleges have been directed to appoint a person belonging to the family of the deceased employee. In the instant case inspite of the Government Orders the Management has not appointed the petitioner.
(3.) In the case of Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 the opposite parties were commanded to create a supernumerary post to adjust a member of the family into Service. Hence we are of the view that the action of the Management not appointing the petitioner, is unjust, unfair and contrary to the Government Orders.;