SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY Mishra, J. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29- 12-1998 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the claim of the petitioner for being given an appointment on the post of pharmacist has been refused by the respondent No. 2. He has further prayed that suitable directions be issued to the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of pharmacist.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the land of his maternal grand-father (Ghanshyam Sharma) was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the respondent No. 2, (National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.) in village Jarcha District Gautam Buddha Nagar. An area of 3 Bigha, 11 Biswa and 3 Biswansi land was acquired from the holdings of the petitioner's maternal grand-father. Placing reliance upon a Government order dated 29-2-1990 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), the petitioner contends that he was entitled to be given appointment under the respondent No. 2 in accordance with his qualification since Ghanshyam Sharma being the land oustee had only one daughter who is the mother of the petitioner and there are no other heirs. He had submitted the prescribed form before the respondent No. 2 nominating the petitioner as his heir for being given employment under the respondent No. 2 by virtue of the said Government order and the scheme of respondent No. 2.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the petitioner is an heir being daughter's son and therefore, he is entitled to inherit the interest of his maternal grand-father under the provision of sub-clause (h) of clause (2) of Section 171 in the absence of any other heir as defined in clause (a) to (g) of the aforesaid section. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of Patna High Court given in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Mst. Shitali Devi & Ors. , 2003 (1) SLR 790, and contended that in the matter of compassionate appointment a rigid interpretation of the Rules would defeat the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rules and therefore, the Court had given a direction for considering the compassionate appointment to an adopted son. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case also rigid interpretation of the definition of family as given in clause 4. 1 of the scheme would amount to defeating the very purpose of the scheme, in case the petitioner is refused appointment under the scheme of facilities to be given the land oustees as framed by the respondent No. 2. It is further contended that the petitioner is fully qualified and is therefore, entitled to be given employment on the post of pharmacist which is lying vacant.