The High Court rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment as a Pharmacist. The court held that such posts require recruitment by the Selection Commission under the relevant rules, making the claim inapplicable as the petitioner was already appointed elsewhere.
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. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9064 of 2019
Petitioner :- Iqbal Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Parvez,Mohammad Fahad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, consequent upon death of his father. An order was passed on 14.5.2015, declining appointment on the post of Pharmacist and offering him appointment on the post of Lab Attendant or any other post for which petitioner possess requisite qualification. Pursuant to this direction, petitioner applied for the post of Lab Attendant and has been offered appointment also. Petitioner has been working since July, 2015. He has now approached this Court with the grievance that qualification for the post of Pharmacist had been amended and that amended rule had not been taken note of as per which he is eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist.
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, appointment on the post of Pharmacist is to be made through U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission and, therefore, in view of the provision contained in Rule 5 read with rule 3 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1974'), no compassionate appointment can be granted on such post. It is stated that the vacancies have otherwise been notified on the post of Pharmacist to the Selection Commission.
Rules of 1974 clearly provides that appointment can be offered only on a post for which recruitment is not required to be undertaken by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
Since post of Pharmacist is earmarked to the Commission for recruitment, the petitioner's claim for compassionate on it cannot be considered. The petitioner has been appointed on the post of Lab Attendant in July, 2015, and therefore, he has otherwise acquiesced to his appointment on the said post. There is no challenge laid to the order declining petitioner's claim on the post of Pharmacist. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2019 Ranjeet Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment to the post of Pharmacist despite vacancies being routed through the Selection Commission.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the decision granting appointment to a different post post facto work.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Iqbal Khan
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
