Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dinesh Rana v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 42994 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 16791 (24 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42994 of 2006

Dinesh Rana


State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on the post of X-Ray Technician under dying in harness rules and pay him salary accordingly and to take suitable decision in pursuance of the letter dated 22.6.2005 issued by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow.

The facts in brief stated in the writ petition clearly shows that the petitioner's father was a ministerial employee in Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Chikitsalaya who died on 21.10.2003 in harness and, thereafter, the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 30.10.2003 appointing him on the post of Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 under U.P. Government Servant (Dying in harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "1974 Rules"). It appears that there was a vacancy on the post of X-Ray Technician subsequently. The petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification for the same but was undergoing training for the said purpose and after completing the same, he submitted an application in the year 2004 requesting the respondents to appoint him under 1974 Rules on the post of X-Ray Technician, but since no order has been passed by the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

In my view, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. Once a person is appointed under 1974 Rules, his right to claim appointment thereunder is exhausted as also held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan VS. Umrao Singh 1994 (6) SCC 560. The Apex Court following its earlier judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali 1994 (4) SCC 448, has held as under :

"Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for a higher post one the ground of compassion would not arise."

It is not disputed that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Junior Clerk under 1974 Rules considering his qualification and eligibility as also availability of vacancy on the said date. Right to claim compassionate appointment is not a normal mode of recruitment but is an exception to normal process of recruitment and only to mitigate the financial constraint suffered by the family of the deceased employee on account of sudden death of sole bread earner. Once the appointment is made, the right, thereafter, is exhausted and no person has any right to claim appointment against any particular post or subsequently on higher post. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of X-Ray Technician after having been appointed as Junior Clerk under 1974 Rules is thoroughly misconceived and contrary to law.

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 24.10.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.