D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for getting compassionate appointment, because his father has expired on 10th March, 1999, while in service of the Respondents. The Petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee, applied within the stipulated time for getting compassionate appointment and since the Respondents have not appointed the Petitioner, the present writ petition has been preferred in the year, 2011.
(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see No. reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following reasons: (I) Father of the Petitioner, who was serving with the Respondents, expired during course of employment on 10th March, 1999 and the Petitioner, being son of the deceased employee, has applied for compassionate appointment. (ii) It appears that more than a decade 'speriod has lapsed from the date of death of the father of the Petitioner and, thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. (iii) 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.;