PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Daya Shankar Srivastava, the father of the petitioner, was a confirmed Asstt. Teacher in Baba Reghavdas Krishak Inter College. Bhatpur Rani, in the district of Dcoria, which is a recognised Educational Institution, receiving grant-in-aid from the State of U.P He died in harness. Pursuant to a direction given by the Distt. Inspector of Schools. Dcoria vide order contained in letter No. 7/Sadar/ 13289-13689/92-93 dated February 1, 1993, the Principal of the college appointed the petitioner vide lsetter dated February 3, 1993 (Annexure 1) against a class-4 post in the college. The said appointment was admittedly made on compassionate ground in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 103 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, added by means of notification No. 4001/15-7-(1)/90 - Shiksha Anubhag-7 dated July 30, 1992. Regulation 103 is quoted below for ready reference. ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(2.) The petitioner joined his duties in the college as class-4 employee pursuant to his appointment vide letter dated February 3, 1993 and is admittedly working there. The instant petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Class 3 employee in the college. The basis of the claim of appointment to class-3 post on compassionate ground, is that the petitioner is highly qualified, being M.Com. B.Ed. It was urged for the petitioner that he was entitled to be appointed on a clerical post commensurate with his qualification in the minimum and the respondents were not justified in giving appointment on a class-4 post in utter disregard of his educational qualification. Credence has been placed for the petitioner on certain decisions including decision dated August 29, 1991 rendered in writ petition No. 24870 of 1991. Rakesh Rai v. Director. Intermediate Education and Ors., on the basis of which another decision dated April 20, 1993 was rendered in writ petition filed by Gyanendra Kumar Misra. Copy of the decision dated April 20, 1993 rendered in writ petition filed by Gyanedra Kumar Misra has been annexed as annexure 6 to the petition.

(3.) Having bestowed its anxious consideration to the question involved in the case, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. As a rule, appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application on merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor public authorities are at liberty to follow another procedure or relax the qualification laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this rule which is to be followed strictly in every case there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies, one such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. What is furthermore, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provisions of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family". (Umeah Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995 -I- LLJ - 798) (SC).