Committee of Management, Ganga Devi Vaghel Vidyalaya vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Shri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

This petition has been preferred questioning the correctness of the impugned orders dated 29.8.2009 and 15.9.2009 on the ground that the respondent No. 4 was not qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Clerk in the institution as he did not hold the requisite qualifications when he had applied.

The submission advanced by Shri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 on compassionate basis is in violation of Rule 8 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

Through an amendment application the petitioner also questions the validity of the Government order dated 31.1.1997 and 4.9.2000 to contend that the 1978 Rules have been amended on several occasions without incorporating the said provisions.

So far as, the first contention regarding the qualification is concerned, the respondent No. 4 has already acquired the qualification and on the date when the selections were held the respondent No. 4 was fully qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

The second argument advanced is in respect of the challenge to the Government orders. The provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 empower the State Government to issue necessary instructions and frame rules.

Apart from this, the Government order dated 31.1.1997 clearly refers to the earlier Government order dated 1.6.1991, under which the aforesaid benefits of compassionate appointment have been extended. The aforesaid Government orders were brought about making a provision that a special Committee shall be constituted for the purpose of consideration of the candidature for appointment on compassionate basis.

The argument is that the 1978 Rules have not been amended therefore the said Government orders would not apply, inasmuch as, a person claiming appointment does not form a different class and his claim cannot be considered without following the rules and procedure for appointment as a teacher. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the law in this regard, which is to the effect, that claims of compassionate appointment cannot be placed at par with the other modes of normal recruitment in order to test the validity of such rules and procedure on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They form a different class and they can be recruited through a special procedure keeping in view the object of compassionate appointment which is to tide away the hard times of the dependants on the loss of the breadwinner. Reference be had to Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Punjab National Bank and Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, U.P. Stock Exchange Branch, . The Government orders were issued to benefit the compassionate claimants and they being a different class, there is no occasion to employ the regular rules for appointment to such category of candidates. Merely because, there is no amendment in the 1978 Rules, the procedure for such selection under the Government order cannot be held to be invalid.

Accordingly, the aforesaid argument is also misconceived and is rejected.

On both counts, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.