IQBAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-66
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 01,2022

IQBAL KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.,Food Corporation Of India Vs. Ramkesh Yadav; 2007 9 Scc 531 Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HONG VS. H. NEOTIA AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
REX VS. RECORDER OF LEICESTER [REFERRED TO]
VIDE [REFERRED TO]
N.C. SANTOSH VS. STATE OF KARNATKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ANIL MALIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. HAKIM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ANKUR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA [REFERRED TO]
HAMZA HAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
MUMTAZ YUNUS MULANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ANJU JAIN [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. MADHUSUDAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHATTISGRAH VS. DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHASHANK GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ARVINDKUMAR T. TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF COMMISSIONER VS. PRABHAT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER VS. KUNTI TIWARY [REFERRED TO]
MGB GRAMIN BANK VS. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. PANKAJ KUMAR VISHNOI [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SURYA NARAIN TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR DUBEY VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V.R. TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SHASHI KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF INDIA & AN R VS. P VENKATESH [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK VS. PROMILA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

JAYANT BANERJI, J. - (1.)Heard Sri Devesh Misra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned standing counsel for the State respondents. Facts
(2.)This Special Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dtd. 18/7/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WRIT - A No. - 9064 of 2019 (Iqbal Khan Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others).
(3.)The impugned judgment and order dtd. 18/7/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced below :-
"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."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.