D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) NEITHER the matter has been mentioned earlier nor anybody is present on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter is called out.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment, because her husband has expired on 10th November, 1998, while in service. Much time has lapsed after the death of the husband of the present petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents while relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P. V/s. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC 412, and Sanjay Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. as reported in (2000)7 SCC 192, has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision also, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. Moreover, claim of the present petitioner for compassionate appointment has already been rejected on 12th September, 2001 and the present writ petition has been preferred only in the year, 2011 i.e. after lapse of a decade 'stime. In view of the aforesaid submission and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the reason that the husband of the present petitioner having already expired on 10th November, 1998, now the claim of the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment cannot be allowed, at this stage, because approximately one dozen years have lapsed after the death of her husband. Thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. Even otherwise also, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on 12th September, 2001 and from 2001 also the present petitioner has not filed any writ petition for ten long years. 4 Moreover, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. V/s. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412, especially at paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, has held as under:
(3.) SEVENTEEN years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal.;