KAMLESH PANT Vs. DIRECTOR ALLAHABAD MUSEUM ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 25. 5. 2006 passed by the Director, Allahabad Museum rejecting representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no vacancy available for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said order.

(2.) SRI B. P. SRIvastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been declined only on the ground that only 5% vacancies in class-IVth are reserved for com passionate appointment and fixation of 5% vacancies for compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. He further contended that the financial condition of the petitioner is very weak and, therefore, the respondents are under a statutory obligation to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(3.) IN Mohan Mehto v. M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. and others, JT 2007 (11) SC 175, the Apex Court followed and reiterated the view taken in Somvir Singh (su pra ).