REKHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The compassionate appointment of the petitioner was cancelled after about 15 years on the ground that she did not have the requisite qualification which was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 3507 of 2008 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. It passed the following reasoned interim order on 8th July 2008 : "heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 1993. By the impugned order dated 27. 6. 2008 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, her appointment has been cancelled on the ground that the educational qualification of Prathama, Madhyama granted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, was not recognized by the government. The decision has been taken after lapse of almost 15 years of service. While canceling the appointment, the respondents had not taken into consideration that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and accordingly, it was incumbent on them to provide alternative post while canceling the earlier appointment. It is not a case where the petitioner was recruited on the basis of direct recruitment on the post of Constable and thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector (M ). On account of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, it was incumbent on the respondents to adjust the petitioner on the post which suits her qualification. A certified copy has been filed indicating therein that the petitioner has passed High School Examination in the year 1990 from the Board. On 3. 7. 2008 learned standing counsel was granted time to receive instructions as to why while to terminating the petitioner's service, the respondents have not taken care of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and she shall be entitled to compassionatory benefit of service. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be admitted staying the operation of the impugned order of cancellation of the service of the petitioner. Admit. Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 27. 6. 2008 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed. However, it is provided that the interim order shall be subject to consideration of respondents to adjust the petitioner on a post which suits to her qualification under rule. " As a consequence of the aforesaid order, the present impugned order has been passed appointing her as a Class IV employee. In the opinion of the Court and on the facts of this case, it would be appropriate that the petitioner approaches the Court in the aforesaid writ petition itself as it is a consequential order and the writ petition is still pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid liberty. .