MAYA DEVI Vs. D I O S ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-12-1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah rejecting the representation of the petitioner for ap pointment to Class III post in Tilak Inter College, Auraiya, District Etawah.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that petitioner's husband, Sri Yogesh Mishra, was Physical Training Instructor in Tilak Inter College, Auraiya, district Etawah which is a recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He died on 2-1-1989 while he was in ser vice. THE petitioner applied for appoint ment on Class III post but she was given appointment on Class IV post on 15-3-1993. She joined the post which was of fered to her. In the year 1995 she sub mitted a representation to the Committee of Management of the institution to ap point her as Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade in the institution. As the repre sentation was not decided she filed writ petition No. 35336 of 1997 which was dis posed of by this Court on 24-10-1997 directing the District Inspector of Schools Etawah to dispose of the petitioner's rep resentation by a reasoned order. THE Dis trict Inspector of Schools has rejected the representation of the petitioner by his im pugned order dated 10-12-1997 holding that the petitioner having once been ap pointed on compassionate ground, she cannot be given further appointment on a higher post again on compassionate ground.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Hirantan v. State of U. P. and others, (1994) 1uplbec 420, wherein the dependent of the deceased employee was given appoint ment under Rule 5 of U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 on Class IV post but later on Class III post having fallen vacant, he claimed appointment to such post on the ground that he was qualified for appointment to Class III post but at the time of his appointment there was no such vacancy he was entitled to be appointed to such post, the Court rejected such claim on the ground that the appoint ment under Rule once made a post which was vacant at that time, the claimant can not further seek appointment to a higher post when subsequently the vacancy to such higher post comes into existence. Similar view was expressed in Manager, Committee of Management, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Inter College, Kanpur v. Mahendra Kumar Shukla and others, (1994)1 UPLBEC 12.