In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the appointment of another employee (respondent no.4) on compassionate grounds, arguing it would obstruct his own promotion. The court found the petitioner's stand unsubstantial and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed as it fails.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13034 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
List revised. Case called out. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition.
Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing the respondent no.1, Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present.
From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that father of the petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in the office of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Hathras, who died in harness on 1.4.2006. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and he was appointed by order dated 1.9.2006 as Class IV Employee. The father of respondent no.4 was also an employee who died in harness. The respondent no.4 applied for appointment on compassionate ground. By the impugned order dated 14.3.2018, the respondent no.4 has been appointed as Junior Clerk. The petitioner has challenged the order of appointment of the respondent no.4 on the ground that his appointment shall obstruct his promotion from Class IV to Class III and, therefore, the order of compassionate appointment of the respondent no.4 be quashed.
I find no substance in the stand taken by the petitioner in this writ petition.
The compassionate appointment has been given to the respondent no.4 in terms of the relevant provisions. No illegality in the impugned order of appointment of the respondent no.4 on compassionate ground, has been pointed out in the writ petition. Under the circumstances, writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 4.7.2018/vkg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of respondent no.4 on compassionate grounds is liable to be quashed as it obstructs the petitioner's promotion prospects?
Bhupendra Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Respondent no.4
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
