B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner applied for a job on compassionate ground under Regulations 101 to 107 framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as the father of the petitioner Sri Sagar Mal Sharma, permanent Assistant Teacher had died on 23-4-1984 in harness. The petitioner applied for the employment and vide order dated 6-10-1996 the petitioner was appointed Class IV employees with respondent No. 3 Institution. The petitioner accepted it and is working in the said Institution since then. The petitioner has filed the instant petition staking has claim to a Class III post which ought to have been offered to him according to his qualifications. The contention of the petitioner that he had accepted the Class IV job under the compelling circumstances of poverty and, thus, the said option was nothing but merely a choice and, thus, the petitioner should be appointed on Class III post either by direct recruitment or by way of promotion.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, 1994 (6) SCC 560, wherein it has been held that once a person has been given appointment as Class IV employee on compassionate ground and he has accepted it, it is not possible for the authority to consider the claim of that person either to appoint him on Class III or to promote him to Class III on that count. The function of the authority comes to an end on giving him appointment on compassionate ground. It has also been said that mere eligibility of an employee is not enough to reconsider his case. The Court observed as under: "He accepted the appointment as L.D.C. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of endless compassion".
(3.) In the case of Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Balavant Regular Motor Service Amravati and others, MR 1969 SC 329, it has been categorically stated that once the order is passed and acted upon, the benefits have been driven out it and advantages have been taken from it by the party, it is not open for him to lodge complaint against the said order, as the same would be barred by law of acquiescence. In the case of State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association, AIR 1994 SC 1654, the law of acquiescence has been further reiterated and explained by the Apex Court.;