- (1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the wife of Tufail Ahmad for a direction to the competent authority to consider her case for compassionate appointement against a post of Category IV and for quashing the communique/order dated 23. 2. 2001, passed by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad. Factual matrix of the case are that deceased Tufail Ahmad had solemnised marriage with Smt. Qamar Jahan and out of the said wedlock, three children were born, i. e. two sons and a daughter. Smt. Qamar Jahan wife of Tufail Ahmad died on 14. 3. 1973. Thereafter, late Tufail Ahmad married the present petitioner and was blessed with ten children. Mohammad Azmal (respondent No. 4) and his brother, who are the sons of Tufail Ahmad from the first wife, started living separately and respondent No. 4 started doing the business of fruits. The daughter born out of the wedlock from the first wife was got married by the deceased in his life time. Tufail Ahmad husband of the petitioner expired on 13. 11. 1999 leaving behind the petitioner and ten children. A succession certificate was also obtained by the petitioner from the District Magistrate. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that since the name of the petitioner was recorded as wife of Tufail Ahmad in service record, admissible dues were paid to the petitioner and now family pension is also being paid to her. After the death of the husband, the petitioner moved an application for granting appointment in relaxation to normal rules on compassionate grounds for her son Zunaid Ahmad. However, since he wanted to study further, the petitioner then applied for her own appointment on 31. 3. 2000. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4, who was born from the first wife without impleading the petitioner, filed a writ peition No. 28995 of 2000 before this Court seeking a direction to consider his case for compassionate appointment. Consequent to the order of this Court, the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad issued a letter dated 29. 9. 2000 to the respondent No. 4 to appear before him. When the present petitioner came to know about the said letter, she also gave an application staking her claim in preference to that of respondent No. 4 as her financial condition was more precarious because she has to take care and support ten children and it has become very difficult for her to maintain all the members of the family in a meagre amount of pension and as such she is in dire need of a job. On 16. 10. 2000, the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 appeared before Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who after hearing the respective claims, was satisfied that the claim of the petitioner is bona fide and asked her to give application in writing, which was given by the petitioner on 18. 10. 2000.
(3.) LATER on, Secretary, U. P. Basic Shiksna Parishad, Allahabad vide letter dated 23. 3. 2001 directed for giving appintment to respondent No. 4 mentioning therein that in para 9 of the Government Order, the dependent son of deceased has got first preference. The said order of the Secretary, U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad has been assailed in the present writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the Secretary wrongly interpreted that the son is at the top of the list of preference vide order dated 23. 3. 2001. The Secretary did not consider the vital fact that it is the petitioner who is looking after the children of late Tufail Ahmad. The petitioner has no other source of livelihood except the meagre pension which she is getting. Her husband was the only bread earner of the family. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unjust as the same has been passed without considering the attending circumstances and the important fact that the deceased Tufail Ahmad left behind a widowed wife (petitioner) and ten children. The reasoning that the son is at the top of the list as given in the Government Order dated 4 September, 2000, reference of which has been given in the impugned order, is incorrect. In fact, the wife or husband is to be given top priority/preference in such compassionate appointment.;