SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE appellant - original petitioner had filed writ petition No. 538/98 before this Court praying that the impugned orders dated 26. 11. 93 and 2. 12. 97 (Annex. 7 and 8 respectively) giving instructions to give appointment to the petitioner only on class IV post as dependent of his father deceased Bhanwar Singh be quashed and the respondents be directed to appoint him on Class III post of clerk/cashier with effect from 29. 12. 97, the date on which he was appointed on the post of Class IV.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner holding that once the petitioner accepted the post of Class IV and resumed the duty with effect from 29. 12. 97, then he is not entitled for appointment to class III post of clerk/cashier. This has been challenged in the special appeal. First of all, we make it clear that seeking appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right of anyone. The Authority is only required to consider the case for appointment as per the Rules. Under the Rules, if the petitioner was entitled for class III post, then in our considered opinion, he should not have accepted class IV post. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he accepted the appointment on Class IV post under protest that would not entitle him to make any further grievance seeking appointment on higher Class III post of Cashier/clerk. His case would have been considered on a different footing provided he refused appointment on class IV post. Having accepted the appointment on Class IV post, then in our considered opinion, he was not entitled to maintain the writ petition, which was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In such type of cases, principle of Estoppel will certainly apply. Before parting, we must state that on the basis of 1996 Rules, submission was made by Mr. Mehta that he was entitled for class III post of Clerk/cashier. But at the same time Rule 6 (2) makes it very clear that, once appointment has been made on any post under the Rules, then the benefit under the Rules shall be deemed to have been availed and the case shall not be reopened for appointment to any other post under any circumstance. Once, there is such a provision under the Rules, then in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition on this ground. We are fortified by our view by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh (1), wherein it has been held as under:- " He accepted the appointment as Lower Division Clerk. Therefore, the right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground was consumated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise 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. " In view of the above discussions, we do not find any substance or merits in the special appeal and hence, it is hereby dismissed. . ;