- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-12-1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah rejecting the representation of the petitioner for ap pointment to Class III post in Tilak Inter College, Auraiya, District Etawah.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that petitioner's husband, Sri Yogesh Mishra, was Physical Training Instructor in Tilak Inter College, Auraiya, district Etawah which is a recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He died on 2-1-1989 while he was in ser vice. THE petitioner applied for appoint ment on Class III post but she was given appointment on Class IV post on 15-3-1993. She joined the post which was of fered to her. In the year 1995 she sub mitted a representation to the Committee of Management of the institution to ap point her as Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade in the institution. As the repre sentation was not decided she filed writ petition No. 35336 of 1997 which was dis posed of by this Court on 24-10-1997 directing the District Inspector of Schools Etawah to dispose of the petitioner's rep resentation by a reasoned order. THE Dis trict Inspector of Schools has rejected the representation of the petitioner by his im pugned order dated 10-12-1997 holding that the petitioner having once been ap pointed on compassionate ground, she cannot be given further appointment on a higher post again on compassionate ground. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was given appointment on Class IV post on 15-3-1993 when Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter III of U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act were not amended. Regulations 101 to 107 were amended vide notification dated 2-2-1995. The dependents of the teachers and other employee, dying in har ness, could get appointment either on Class III or Class IV posts prior to amend ment made in Regulations 101 to 107 but after the amendment the post of L. T. Grade teachers was also included. Regula tions 103 to 107 also apply to those employee who died on or after 1-1-1981. Prior to the aforesaid amendment of Regulation 103 the dependent of a deceased employee could be appointed as non- teaching staff but after the amend ment such dependent, if eligible, can be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the in stitution. This provision enables the Com mittee of Management to appoint a de pendent of a deceased employee on the post of teacher as well. The Amending rule, however, does not provide that those dependents who are already in employ ment they shall further be reconsidered for appointment on compassionate ground to a higher post on which they have already been appointed. In State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) JT (4) 184, wherein the dependent of a deceased employee who had died in harness was appointed as clerk but later on claimed the appointment to the post of Inspector, it was held that once the appointment on compassionate ground having been consumed, such claimant cannot be given further appoint ment to a promotional post. This legal principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 561 and it was held that once the appointment is made on compassionate ground, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was con sumated. It was observed: "therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consumated. No further consideration on com passionate ground would ever rise. Otherwise, it, would be a case of "endless compassion. " Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case. "
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Hirantan v. State of U. P. and others, (1994) 1uplbec 420, wherein the dependent of the deceased employee was given appoint ment under Rule 5 of U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 on Class IV post but later on Class III post having fallen vacant, he claimed appointment to such post on the ground that he was qualified for appointment to Class III post but at the time of his appointment there was no such vacancy he was entitled to be appointed to such post, the Court rejected such claim on the ground that the appoint ment under Rule once made a post which was vacant at that time, the claimant can not further seek appointment to a higher post when subsequently the vacancy to such higher post comes into existence. Similar view was expressed in Manager, Committee of Management, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Inter College, Kanpur v. Mahendra Kumar Shukla and others, (1994)1 UPLBEC 12. The purpose of the appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of a bread earner in the family. In Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 196 the Supreme Court laid emphasis on this aspect.;