SHARAD KUMAR CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent No.1 and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd. 8/7/2021 passed by the Respondent No.2, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on a suitable post and according to his qualification has been rejected. A further prayer for mandamus commanding the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the basis of the application dtd. 26/11/2011 and 10/14/11/2016 on a suitable post according to his qualification has also been made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School, Mustafabad, Block Jaleelpur, District Bijnor on 18/9/1997 and died-in-harness on 16/11/2011. After the death of his mother, the petitioner possessing a B.Sc. Degree, filed an application dtd. 26/11/2011 seeking compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher before the Respondent No.4, Block Education Officer, Jaleelpur, District Jaunpur. The application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer. The petitioner again filed another application dtd. 10/11/2016 before the Respondent No.3, Block Education Officer. Vide letter dtd. 13/12/2016 the Respondent No.2, District Basic Education Officer, informed the petitioner that his second application dtd. 13/12/2016 is being returned, treating the same to be time barred. By the said letter, the petitioner was required to complete all the formalities and submit an application seeking compassionate appointment on a post according to his qualification through proper channel. In pursuance of the letter dtd. 13/12/2016, the petitioner submitted his application dtd. 28/7/2017, which was duly received by the Respondent No.4. When no heed was paid on the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner preferred Writ (A) No.6802 of 2020, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 3/9/2020 with a direction to the Respondent No.2, to consider the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate speaking order within a period of two months. When the order dtd. 3/9/2020 was not complied with the petitioner filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.4588 of 2021, which was also disposed of vide order dtd. 26/10/2021 directing the opposite party to consider the case of the petitioner and comply with the order passed in Writ (A) No.6802 of 2020 within six weeks. In pursuance of the order passed by Writ Court and Contempt Court, the Respondent No.2, vide his order dtd. 8/7/2021 considered the representation dtd. 10/9/2020 filed by the petitioner and rejected his claim for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved withe the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.