UDAYVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, before us as appellants, have been selected in the written and oral examinations under the dying in harness category but they failed in the test of physical fitness. According to them, due to shortage of time i.e. 10 days between the other examinations and the physical fitness test, they were not prepared for such physical fitness test. Therefore, they are entitled for the second opportunity, if the relevant Rules, Government Orders and the order of the Division Bench dated 20th December, 2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 1602 of 2006, Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi v. State of U.P. and others, are taken together.

(2.) Learned Single Judge, in his order dated 16.2.2010 has held that no right can be vested with the candidates to become successful in the examinations under the category of dying in harness alongwith others, who get appointment, with the confirmation of a status and reservation of the post. Time always vitiates the need of compassionate appointment and, in the present case, no financial hardship is supposed to be faced by the family and at least the same can be reflected when they are also fighting for cause for the last four years. Moreover, the judgment of self-same learned Single Judge dated 28.10.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52357 of 2009, Smt. Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. and others, which is favouring the cause of the appellants herein, has been held perineurium in nature.

(3.) Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has contended before us that the appellants before this Court cannot be discriminated with others, who have already been given an opportunity by the self-same learned Single Judge in Smt. Neelam Verma (supra). According to learned standing counsel, such judgment is only applicable in the case of Rule 16 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter in short called as the Rules, 2008) i.e. with regard to promotion. But we find from such judgment in re: Smt. Neelam Verma (supra) that the issue involved therein was as follows: