High Court
Legal Reasoning
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12427 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ravi Kishan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1 to 3. 3. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fourth respondent.
Decision
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the fourth respondent Janta Inter College, Veerbhanpur, Jaunpur is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 stand applicable. 5. According to the writ petitioner, his father namely Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the fourth respondent-institution and his appointment was approved by virtue of the order dated 03.05.1997 by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 20.12.2020. The writ petitioner post-death of his father preferred an application before the respondents for according compassionate appointment in terms of Regulations 101-107 of the Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Act on 05.04.2023 armed with academic qualification of B.Sc. (Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics), M.Sc. (Mathematics) and B.Ed. The claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by virtue of the order dated 12.07.2023 on the premise that since the services of the father of the writ petitioner were not regularized, thus the writ petitioner does not fall within the definition of dependent so as to accord compassionate appointment. 6. Questioning the order dated 12.07.2023, with a further direction to consider the claim for compassionate appointment, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. This Court entertained the writ petition on 16.08.2023. 7. Today, when the matter has been taken up, Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the instructions under the signature of the District Inspector of Jaunpur dated 21.08.2023, which is taken on record. On a pointed query being made to the learned Standing Counsel, as to whether he proposes to file any response to the writ petition, he submits that he does not propose to file any response and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the instructions, available on record, as the instructions which have been forwarded are of the same authority, who has passed the order impugned, which would suffice the purpose. 8. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the writ petitioner while assailing the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur has sought to contend that the premise on the basis whereof the order has been passed in not only legally untenable but also non-existent, particularly for the reason being that mere non-reguarization would not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment as he seeks to rely upon in judgment in Writ-A No. 11612 of 2017, Smt. Preeti Sharma vs. State of U.P. decided on 03.08.2021. He submits that in the said judgment, this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions contained under Regulation 103 of the Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, wherein this Court had interpreted the word "Jo vihit prakriya ke anusar niyukt kiya gaya ho" while coming to the conclusion that appointment has to be made according to the Rules and there is no bar that the compassionate appointment cannot be made until and unless the services of the deceased stood regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards the supplementary affidavit filed today, Annexure-SA1 reference whereof has been given in paragraph-3 of the Supplementary Affidavit so as to contend that on 03.05.1997, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur had proceeded to accord approval to the appointment of the writ petitioner while observing that the father of the writ petitioner was liable to be absorbed in view of the fact that he had been rendering long service in the institution in question and it is also an act of fair play. He thus submits that in the wake of the said facts the matter needs reconsideration and the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the the District Inspector of Schools. 9. Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel who appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 while inviting the attention of this Court towards the instructions filed today dated 21.08.2023 under the signatures of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, second last paragraph has contended that since the services of the father of the writ petitioner were not regularized, thus there was no question for according compassionate appointment. He however submits that the issue needs reconsideration at the level of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, as the issues are being raised are to be decided at the first instance by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. According to him, the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back. 10. Ordinarily, in normal circumstances, this Court would have undertaken the task of addressing the issue on merits, however, in view of the stand taken by the parties in question the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the second respondent, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, the matter stands remitted back to the second respondent to decide the matter afresh after putting to notice the fourth respondent while fixing a date informing in advance in writing and after hearing the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent, a reasoned and speaking order be passed after considering the following fundamental and core issues: (a) the claim of the writ petitioner that mere non-regularization would not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment; (b) the import and impact of the order dated 03.05.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, approving the appointment of the father of the writ petitioner; (c) the applicability of the judgment in the case of Smt. Preeti Sharma (supra) in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment; (d) eligibility and suitability of the writ petitioner; (e) the issue with regard to competing claim, if any, of the deceased; (f) The stand of the fourth respondent about the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment; (e) any other ancillary or incidental issues connected with the same. 11. The said exercise is to be undertaken and concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 12. Needless to point out that the writ petitioner has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits. 13. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed off. 14. The instructions produced today before this Court dated 21.08.2023 under the signatures of the District Inspector of Schools Jaunpur is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 6.10.2023 / N.S.Rathour Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad