ARVIND PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner - appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) aggrieved by an order dated 23.03.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No.14766 of 2009, dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Shorts facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that appellant's father was a Constable in the U.P. Police and he expired during service on 15.08.1991. Appellant at that time was aged about 11 years and when he became major, has filed application for appointment on compassionate ground. His prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the Superintendent of Police on 31.01.2003 and appellant sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding the order passed on his application for appointment on compassionate ground. Then he was informed that the Superintendent of Police had rejected his prayer for appointment on compassionate ground and this information was made available to him on 28.04.2003. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate ground. By the impugned order, said writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge. Mr. Vimal Chandra Misra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the family of the appellant is still in penury and therefore, direction be issued for his appointment on compassionate ground. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Misra. It is well settled that the object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis. Undisputably, appellant's father died in the year 1991. Any direction for appointment at such a distance of time shall be in the breach of the principle underlying the appointment on compassionate ground. There is yet another impediment in the way of the appellant. His prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on 31.01.2003 and the said order was made available to him on 28.04.2003 as is clear from the information given under the Right to Information Act. The appellant cannot, therefore, contend that he was not aware of the order. Thus, the writ petition was also fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this Appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.