STATE OF U P Vs. VINAY YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 8 July 2014.

(2.) The brother of the respondent was selected in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) as a constable on 5 July 2006. He was appointed in the 28th Battalion at PAC Etawah. On 8 November 2007, the Government cancelled the selection process and appointments of constables throughout the State on the ground that there were malpractices in the selection process. By orders dated 11 September 2007, 18 September 2007 and 30 September 2007, the appointments of over 18700 personnel were cancelled. A large batch of writ petitions was filed in this Court challenging the decision of the State Government. The leading writ petition in Pawan Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No. 45645 of 2007) was allowed by a judgment and order dated 8 December 2008. The writ petitions were allowed and the orders passed by the Government canceling selection process and appointments were quashed. A special appeal (Special Appeal No. 244 of 2009) filed by the State was dismissed on 4 March 2009. The State Government moved the Supreme Court in a special leave petition. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of an order of the Supreme Court dated 25 May 2009, the State Government had issued a government order dated 26 May 2009 by which all the constables were allowed to rejoin on provisional basis. Eventually, the special leave petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the directions issued by this Court attained finality.

(3.) The brother of the respondent met with an accident and died on 26 February 2008. The claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment was rejected by an order dated 10 April 2013 on the ground that his brother had joined service on 2 September 2006 but the State Government had on 8 November 2007 cancelled all the recruitments and appointments throughout the State. On 12 September 2007, the services of the brother of the respondent were also terminated. Hence, it was submitted that the brother of the respondent who had died in the meantime on 26 February 2008 was deemed to be out of service. Even though a notice had been sent to him on 30 May 2009 in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 25 May 2009 and the subsequent government order dated 26 May 2009, he had not reported in view of the admitted position that he had already died in an accident on 26 February 2008.