Suresh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

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

The challenge is to the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of an appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector whereas such consideration has been extended in the case of other persons.

Sri Siddharth Khare learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in the case of Surya Kant Kadam Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, contends that in para 2 of the said decision it has been held that such an approach may amount to an act of hostile discrimination.

In the instant case, the other candidates who have been extended the benefit, had not accepted any post of constable. On the contrary they had approached this Court and had also approached the authority with the request that they do not want to join the post of constable and should be given the post of Sub-Inspector.

The petitioner on the other hand has accepted the post of constable without any demur and had not challenged the order of appointment dated 24.8.2007.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that similarly situated candidates including one Sanjeev Dubey has been given the post of Sub-Inspector. The case of Sanjeev Dubey is not at par with that of the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged his order of appointment. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, has held that once an appointment has been accepted, the claim of the compassionate appointment comes to an end. The said decision relies on an earlier judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, which is a 3-Judge-Bench decision. None of these have been noticed in the case of Surya Kant Kadam (supra). In view of the Full Bench decision of Ganga Saran Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and others, the appropriate course is to follow the law enunciated in the case of Umrao Singh (supra).

In view of the aforesaid I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition of the petitioner and the relief cannot be possibly granted as prayed for.

The writ petition is dismissed.