SHYAMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15.11.1987, the petitioner's father died in harness. On 22.11.1987, the petitioner filed an application for an appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974. The District Agriculture Officer issued an appointment letter dated 24.12.1987 appointing the petitioner on the post of Kamdar, which is a Class-IV post. The petitioner accepted this appointment and joined the office of District Agriculture Officer, Ghazipur. It transpires that the petitioner made several representations praying that he should be appointed on a post which commensurate with his educational qualifications. These representations. remained pending for several years and ultimately an order dated 8.12.2004 was passed appointing the petitioner as a junior clerk on a class III post. This order was subsequently, recalled/cancelled by orders dated 24.2.2005 and 3.3.2005, which are impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had already been appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and no second appointment could be issued under the said Rules.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appointment on a Class-Ill post was not a second appointment but was only a rectification of the original order, which had been rectified on the basis of the educational qualifications and experience which he possessed and therefore, the impugned order cancelling the order of appointment was wholly illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the petitioner was entitled to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order.

(3.) In State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC-560 the Supreme Court held" Once the respondent accepted the appointment as a clerk which appointment came to be made on compassionate ground, he cannot lay a further claim, for appointment as sub-inspector. It cannot be a case of compassion for all time."