# Anshuman Singh Bhadoria v. Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 78
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44541 of 2002
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anshuman-singh-bhadoria-v-director-of-education-u-p-allahabad-and-others-40801
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
Law-compassionate
appointmentpetitioner's father died in harness as
clerk in Pt. S.L. Memorial P.G. College
affiliate to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Universityclaim based on G.O. 21.11.95 applicable
to
Non-Government
Degree
Collegerejected on the ground his mother is
already working as Asstt. Teacher in
Girls Inter College-held-compassionate
appointment can not be claimed as a
matter of right financial situation of
family recourse to this scheme can not
be taken-rejection order upheld.

Held: Para 4

Compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right in all
circumstances as it is hedged by the
condition that there is financial distress
due to untimely death of the bread
winner and requires immediate relief. It
cannot be said that irrespective of a
comfortable financial situation the family
can yet take recourse to this rule or
scheme, as it cannot be held that it is a
new
source
of
recruitment.
1 All] Anshuman Singh Bhadoria V. Director of Education and others
79
Case law discussed:
1994 (4) SCC-138
2004 (7) SCC-271
AIR 2001 SC-2415
AIR 2003 SC-1241
AIR 2003 SC-620
1999 (9) SCC-240

## Text

78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
allegations made against the applicant and
other co-accused persons prima facie
offence is made out and there is sufficient
material to proceed further. There is no
illegality in the investigation as well as in
framing of the charge. At the stage of
charge, the only material collected by the
Investigating Officer is required to be
considered, no other material is required
to be considered and it is not a stage of
appreciation of the evidence including the
probability and contradictions etc. The
Stage of appreciation of evidence shall
come when the evidence is adduced at the
stage of trial. At this stage it is to be
considered whether on the basis of the
allegation made against the accused prima
facie offence is made out or material
collected by the Investigating Officer is
sufficient to proceed further. The apex
court has decided this controversy in a
case of State of Orrisa Vs. Devendra Nath
Pathi reported in 2005(1) J.I.C. 289(SC).

6. In view of the above discussion,
there is no illegality in the charge dated
28.11.2005 and there is no ground to
quash the criminal proceedings pending
against the applicant, the prayer for
quashing the criminal proceedings of S.T.
No. 511 of 2005 pending in the court of
learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge
Mathura and the charge dated 28.11.2005
framed by the learned Additional IIIrd
Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, is
refused.

7. Accordingly this application is
dismissed.

Application Rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44541 of 2002

Anshuman Singh Bhadoria ...Petitioner
Versus
Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Vinod Kr. Singh
Sri S.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
Law-compassionate
appointmentpetitioner's father died in harness as
clerk in Pt. S.L. Memorial P.G. College
affiliate to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Universityclaim based on G.O. 21.11.95 applicable
to
Non-Government
Degree
Collegerejected on the ground his mother is
already working as Asstt. Teacher in
Girls Inter College-held-compassionate
appointment can not be claimed as a
matter of right financial situation of
family recourse to this scheme can not
be taken-rejection order upheld.

Held: Para 4

Compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right in all
circumstances as it is hedged by the
condition that there is financial distress
due to untimely death of the bread
winner and requires immediate relief. It
cannot be said that irrespective of a
comfortable financial situation the family
can yet take recourse to this rule or
scheme, as it cannot be held that it is a
new
source
of
recruitment.
1 All] Anshuman Singh Bhadoria V. Director of Education and others
79
Case law discussed:
1994 (4) SCC-138
2004 (7) SCC-271
AIR 2001 SC-2415
AIR 2003 SC-1241
AIR 2003 SC-620
1999 (9) SCC-240

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

This petition is directed against an
order dated 3rd. September, 2002 by
which the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment has been
rejected.

2. Pandit Sunder Lal Memorial Post
Graduate College, Kannauj, is affiliated to
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra,
wherein Lakhan Pal Singh Bhadoria
father of the petitioner, was working as
clerk and expired in harness on 25.3.2002.
The petitioner claimed compassionate
appointment
in
pursuance
of
a
Government Order dated 21.11.1995 by
which
the
rules
of
compassionate
appointment have been made applicable
to
aided
non-governmental
Degree
Colleges. The claim of the petitioner has
been rejected by the impugned order as
admittedly
his
mother
Smt.
Indira
Bhadoria is working as an Assistant
teacher in Gomti Devi Girls Inter College,
Kannauj.

3. Petitioner has firstly urged that in
the scheme there is no such bar placed
and, therefore, the impugned order cannot
be sustained.

4.

The
rule
or
scheme
of
compassionate appointment is one of
those few exception to the normal rule of
recruitment which stands at the very brink
of the fire of arbitrariness and equality as
enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and has been saved only on
humane considerations. The only object is
to give succour to the bereaved family
whose sole bread winner has suddenly left
them in a financial lurch. Compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a
matter of right in all circumstances as it is
hedged by the condition that there is
financial distress due to untimely death of
the bread winner and requires immediate
relief. It cannot be said that irrespective of
a comfortable financial situation the
family can yet take recourse to this rule or
scheme, as it cannot be held that it is a
new source of recruitment. The Apex
Court in the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others
[(1994) 4 S.C.C. 138] while propounding
the aforesaid principle has held that
".........mere death of an employee in
harness does not entitle his family to such
source of livelihood. The Government or
the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it
is satisfied, that, but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis that job is to be offered to
the eligible member of the family." This
proposition has again been reiterated in
General Manager (D & PB) and others
v. Kunti Tiwary and another [2004] 7
S.C.C. 271]. Applying the principle to the
present facts, it is apparent that the
petitioner is the only son and his mother is
already employed, though, conveniently
her salary has not been disclosed in the
writ petition. Further, there is no pleading
to show that financially the duo of mother
and son cannot carry on or they are in
such a financial position that needs the
exception rule to be invoked. Only a
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
vague statement has been made that his
mother does not maintain the petitioner,
but he has failed to show who is
maintaining him or how the petitioner is
surviving. Thus, the court is not inclined
to accept the first argument raised on
behalf of the petitioner.

5. The second argument urged on
behalf of the petitioner is that in an
identical matter, appointment had been
given to one Sharad Dixit by the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Farrukhabad/
Kannauj, even though his mother Smt.
Sushila Dixit was employed in another
institution, while the petitioner is being
discriminated.
In
support
of
his
contention, the petitioner has relied upon
a decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Surya Kant Kadam v. State of
Karnataka and others [AIR 2001 S.C.
2415].

6. Article 14 is not available to
perpetuate illegality and the High Court
cannot issue directions that a mistake be
perpetuated
on
the
ground
of
discrimination or hardship. This principle
has been upheld by the Apex Court in the
cases of Yogesh Kumar and others v.
Government of N.C.P. Delhi and others
[A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1241] Jallundhar
Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab
and others [A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 620] and
State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajiv Sarwal
[1999 (9) S.C.C. 240]. The facts of the
case of Smt. Susheela Dixit have not been
disclosed. Assuming that the petitioner is
similarly placed, in view of the principles
enshrined above, the appointment of Mr.
Dixit would be illegal. Having perused
the judgment in the case of Suryakant
Kadam (Supra), it is apparent that it does
not apply to the present set of facts.

7. For the reasons given above, I do
not find that it is a fit case for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Rejected.
Petition dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD 27.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.C. DEEPAK, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21348
of 2004

Arun

...Applicant (IN JAIL).
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Jagdish Sengar
Sri V.P. Srivastava
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Nasiruzzaman
Sri A.N. Mulla
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure S-439-Bail
Application offence under section 376.
506, 120 B IPC victim a worker in an
institution named "Rapid Road Auto
Agency" Sanjai Palace Agra-who was to
secure customer for Registration of their
vehicles- applicant accused person taken
her to a semi constructed home all the
four accused committed rape from (2.30
P.M. to 4 P.M. duly supported by medical
report-one of the accused was granted
Bail for short term-due to his terror and
physical violence the victim and her
family shifted to Aligarh-which resulted
suicide-hence the Bail application was
already rejected. Bail application of
others
co-accused
rejected
with
direction to surrender before the court
below
forthwith-failing
of
which-