D.K.Seth - (1.) BY means of Writ Petition No. 18636 of 1992, Ramesh Singh Chauhan v. Executive Engineer, Rehand Dam and another, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner and consideration of his representation for appointment on the post, for which he is qualified and in which the petitioner's father was working. The petitioner's case in short is that the petitioner's father, who was working on the post of cleaner, died in an accident on 26.6.1991. On the principle of dying-in-harness policy of the State Government, the petitioner applied on 17.7.1991 and again on 4.9.1991 and 24.1.1992, filed as Annexures 1, 2, 3 to the writ petition, for his appointment.
(2.) THE petitioner had qualified for such appointment under U. P. Government Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974. THE provision of the said rule being man8atory, the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioner and the petitioner has by reason of the provisions of the said rule, has acquired legal right for such appointment on account of his being possessed of the requisite qualification. In the counter-affidavit filed in the said Writ Petition No. 18636 of 1992. the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had pointed out that two writ petitions have been filed claiming the appointment under the said 1974 Rules. One by the present petitioner and the other being Writ Petition No. 31174 of 1992 by Smt. Raj Kumari Devi. In the circumstances the respondent No. 2 had no alternative but to direct the said two claimants to obtain succession certificate from the civil court and only thereafter their case could be decided. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner pointed out that he is not aware of other writ petition filed by Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and claimed that he is the only legitimate child of Sri Ram Lal and is entitled to get the said appointment. From the certified copy of application dated 16.12.1966 made under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the objections filed by the deceased thereto, it was pointed out that mother of the petitioner Smt. Sharda was admittedly, the wife of the deceased, which have been filed as annexure-RA 1 and RA 2 to the rejoinder affidavit. He had produced the Kutumb register filed by the petitioner showing the relation of the deceased. Ram Lal used to pay maintenance to Smt. Sharda Devi by an order dated 15.10.1969, which has been filed as annexure-RA 4 to the rejoinder affidavit. He challenged the order of respondent No. 2 directing production of succession certificate on the ground that there is no such provision for obtaining such certificate in respect of appointment under 1974 Rules. It was the respondent No. 2, who has the authority to decide the case and that it is not necessary to approach the civil court. On the basis of such document, the respondents could not have refused employment to the petitioner under the said Rule.
(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 31174 of 1992, Smt. Raj Kumari Devi v. State of U.P. and others, the petitioner claimed to be the wife of the deceased Ram Lal and claimed appointment under the said 1974 Rules. Ramesh Singh Chauhan is the step-son of the petitioner. He is thirty years of age and is employed elsewhere. Therefore, he is not eligible for the said appointment. INstead of giving such appointment by an order dated 13.5.1992, the respondent No. 2 asked Smt. Raj Kumari Devi to obtain succession certificate, which is not necessary under Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, the respondent No. 2 is the appropriate authority for deciding the said dispute. IN view of Rule 7 of the Rules, the respondent No. 2 is bound to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application and decide the dispute. It has also been contended that she come within the definition of 'family' as given in Rule 2 (c) of the said Rules. Therefore, the demand of succession certificate is wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the same statements as made in the counter-affidavit to the Writ Petition No. 18636 of 1992 have been repeated. Ramesh Singh Chauhan, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 31174 of 1992, in his counter-affidavit has virtually repeated the statements made in Writ Petition No. 18636 of 1992 and denied the claim of Smt. Raj. Kumari Devi.;