Yogendra Mohan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and the Respondents at length.

By means of this petition the Petitioner has made a prayer for a direction to the opposite party to appoint the Petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 1.1.1989.

The father of the Petitioner was posted as Head Constable in civil police posted at Chauki Harbans Mohal, police station, Harbans Mohal, district Kanpur Nagar. He expired on 10th November, 1986. At the time when the Petitioner''s father died, he was a student of B. Com. Ist year. At that time he moved an application before the D.I.G. of Police (Karmik) Police Head Quarter, Allahabad, for being appointed on the post of constable, according to his qualification under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. After interview the Petitioner was appointed and was sent for training of constable at recruitment training center at Banda. After completing the training the Petitioner joined the post of Constable at Etawah in April, 1990 in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500.

The Petitioner claims that he ought to have been appointed as Sub-Inspector (M) (Stenographer) under Dying-in-Harness Rules in accordance with his educational qualification as he also knew shorthand (Hindi) as well as Hindi and English typing, but he was appointed as constable denying him the pay-scale Sub-Inspector (M) 1640-2900.

It is alleged that under similar circumstances Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh Yadav S/o Sri Geetam Singh Yadav was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules and the appointment of the Petitioner as constable is discriminated.

It appears from paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the Petitioner had moved an application to the D.I.G. of Police (Karmik) Police Head Quarter, Allahabad, for the post of constable and was appointed as such. Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh Yadav did not apply for the post of constable as admitted by the counsel for the Petitioner.

Appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974, is not made as a matter of right. Once the Petitioner had joined the post of constable, he cannot claim the higher post merely because he has attained higher qualification by that time. The Petitioner was B. Com.-I at the time of death of his father when he applied for the job. There is no illegality and discrimination in the order as alleged.

For all these reason, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.