# Shiv Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 390
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 367 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-dutt-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52864
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment
-
Cancellation
-
Appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher was made even without having
necessary qualification - Permissibility -
Held, eligibility for a higher post like
Assistant Teacher is separate from the
compassionate appointment process and
it
must
adhere
to
the
requisite
qualification and selection rules - D.
Dinesh Chandra Sharma's case relied
upon. (Para 24)

B.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Cancellation - Though the
benefit of appointment on compassionate
grounds was availed earlier, the same
benefit was availed second time for higher
post
-
Permissibility
-
Held,
the
petitioner, having earlier been appointed
on compassionate grounds on the post of
Chaukidar/Chaprasi, the said right to
claim
appointment
on
compassionate
ground stood exhausted and it would not
open
to
the
petitioner
to
seek
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher again on compassionate grounds.
(Para 31)

Second Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. From the perusal of the documents
that have been brought on record by means
of
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
petitioner, he admits that these were the
only documents in the form of GST
receipts that were led in evidence and
evidence is always said to be relevant and
cogent to return a finding on facts and
issues if it relates to a fact position as to the
consideration of a point on the date of
institution of the case. Relevancy of
documents as to the facts in issue would
therefore, would be determinable as to
status on the date of institution of the case.
In the present case I find that the document
that has been lead in evidence by the
petitioner in support of the averment made
in the written statement that son was
independently settled in a business in the
name of Sanskar Traders were not of the
year 2020 and onwards while the release
for bona fide needs was set up in the year
2020 for the first time. Any document that
showed that GST receipts were issued in
the name of Sanskar Traders with Akash
Varshney as proprietor of the firm would
have been relevant had it been of the relevant
year of release case being instituted.
Moreover, I find that the 2018 GST receipt
showed itself that the GSTIN number
standing in the name of Sanskar Traders with
Akash Varshney as proprietor came to be
cancelled. A document evidencing a factm of
cancellation of registration of firm for GST
would not have been relevant enough in
support of the averments that son Akash
Varshney was doing independent business.
Evidence is led to prove a fact, relevant to
issue. So evidence becomes a medium to
prove a fact pleaded. Evidence of course, can
be oral or documetary. A party not able to
prove a fact would be certainly leading
documentary evidence or material but such
evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue.
Sometime an inference can be drawn from a
document filed but in instant case since the
GSTN receipt itself showed that Sanskar
Trader's TIN in the name of Akash stood
cancelled, only adverse inference could have
been drawn. The court of appeal, therefore,
was fully justified in ignoring the said
document and placing more reliance upon the
averments made by the petitioner himself that
son was doing business with his father. Even
otherwise the document brought on records
by means of supplementary affidavit of the
landlord respondents shows that since
September, 2018 onwards the firm stood
registered in the name of Rakesh Varshney
only as proprietor of the firm.

11. Thus, if the son has been doing
business with his father, he has every right
to get settled independently in a business
and father is absolutely justified in setting
up a need for the release of the shop in
question to settle his son. Need therefore,
was liable to be rendered as bona fide and I
do not see any manifest error either in law
or on facts in the orders passed by the
Prescribed Authority as well as by the
appellate court.

12. Petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 390
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 367 of 2024

Shiv Dutt Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yatindra

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment
-
Cancellation
-
Appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher was made even without having
necessary qualification - Permissibility -
Held, eligibility for a higher post like
Assistant Teacher is separate from the
compassionate appointment process and
it
must
adhere
to
the
requisite
qualification and selection rules - D.
Dinesh Chandra Sharma's case relied
upon. (Para 24)

B.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Cancellation - Though the
benefit of appointment on compassionate
grounds was availed earlier, the same
benefit was availed second time for higher
post
-
Permissibility
-
Held,
the
petitioner, having earlier been appointed
on compassionate grounds on the post of
Chaukidar/Chaprasi, the said right to
claim
appointment
on
compassionate
ground stood exhausted and it would not
open
to
the
petitioner
to
seek
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher again on compassionate grounds.
(Para 31)

Second Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Rajasthan Vs Umrao Singh; (1994) 6
SCC 560

2. St. of Haryana Vs Naresh Kumar Bali; (1994)
4 SCC 448

3. Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs St. of MP; (2023)
SCC OnLine MP 7036

4. D. Dinesh Chandra Sharma Vs District
Inspector of Schools; (2000) SCC OnLine All
861
5. Ashwani Kumar Gautam Vs St. of U.P.;
(2011) SCC OnLine All 1854

6. Mohd. Sartaj Vs St. of U.P.; (2006) 2 SCC 315

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri Tej Bhanu Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the State-respondent
and Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. The present special appeal is
directed against the judgment and order
dated
07.03.2024
passed
in
Writ-A
No.6916 of 2019 (Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs.
State of UP and others) whereby the writ
petition has been disposed of with certain
observations and directions.

3. The basic facts of the case which
are available on record indicate that the
appellant-petitioner
was
granted
appointment on compassionate grounds on
the post of Chowkidar in Junior High
School, Badagaon, Vikas Kshetra Arnia,
District Bulandshahar vide appointment
order dated 10.11.1981.

4. On an application dated 06.02.1984,
the petitioner was permitted to apply for
admission in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shashtri)
Course. The petitioner was directed to take
admission after seeking sanction of unpaid
leave for the purpose, with stipulation that
he himself join duties in the same school
after expiry of the leave period.

5. In due course of time, the petitioner
claims to have been appointed against the
post of Assistant Teacher by an order dated
16.08.1986 passed by the District Basic
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education Officer, Bulandshahar, in terms
of a decision dated 03.07.1986 of the
Appointment/Promotion
Committee
for
Teachers of Basic Schools of District
Bulandshahar. The appointment order was
stated to have been issued on the basis of
the qualification shown in the application
form of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner continued to serve as
Assistant Teacher for about 32 years.
However, a few months before the date of
his retirement i.e. 31.03.2019, when he was
working as Principal at Primary School,
Salempur, Pahadgarhi, a notice/order dated
21.12.2018 was issued from the Block
Education Officer, Block Arnia stating that
the petitioner by concealing the fact
relating to his first appointment on
compassionate grounds, had obtained the
appointment against the post of Assistant
Teacher. The petitioner was directed to
submit his explanation alongwith evidence
in regard to the same failing which it would
be presumed that he had nothing to say in
the matter, and departmental proceedings
would be initiated against him.

7. The petitioner submitted a response
to the aforesaid notice on 27.12.2018,
wherein no reply was given on the facts
mentioned in the notice and the notice was
termed as baseless.

8. The petitioner submitted another
reply dated 05.01.2019 stating therein that
he had applied for appointment on
compassionate
grounds
as
per
his
educational qualifications; however, he had
given
appointment
on
the
post
of
Chaprasi/Chowkidar, which was not as per
his educational qualifications. It was
further submitted that after obtaining
permission from the department, the
petitioner passed the B.Ed. examination by
taking leave without pay and thereafter on
the basis of a decision dated 03.07.1986 by
the Appointments Committee for Basic
Schools, he was given appointment as
trained Assistant Teacher, and he took
charge on the said post on 16.08.1986. It
was stated that he had not concealed any
fact from the department and that as he was
to attain the age of superannuation on
31.01.2019,
and
was
to
retire
on
31.03.2019 after completing the academic
session, the notice dated 21.12.2018 had no
justification.

9. The Basic Education Officer,
Bulandshahr
upon
considering
the
aforesaid reply, issued an office order dated
08.02.2019
stating
therein
that
the
petitioner had been appointed on the post of
Chowkidar in the Junior High School,
Badagaon,
Block
Arnia,
District
Bulandshahar and again he was appointed
on compassionate grounds on the post of
Assistant Teacher at Primary School,
Badauli, Block Arnia and he took charge
on 16.08.1986. In view of the aforesaid, the
petitioner was directed to furnish certain
documents within a week. The aforesaid
office order dated 08.02.2019 is being
reproduced below:-

"जजला बेससक सिक्षा अधिकार , बुलन्दिहर

पत्ाींक प्रबन्ि/१५७०७-८ /२०१८-१९

ददनाींक ०८.०२.२०१९
कायाालय आदेि

श्री सिवदत्त िमाा(प्रिानाध्यापक),

प्राथसमक
ववद्यालय
सलेमपुर,
पहाडगढ ,

ववकास क्षेत् अरतनयाीं,

जनपद बुलन्दिहर।
1 All. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393

आप
अपने
पत्
ददनाींक
०५.०१.२०१९ का सन्दर्ा ग्रहण करें, जजसके
माध्यम से आप द्वारा अवगत कराया गया
है कक मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में ववर्ाग
द्वारा आपकी तनयुजक्त चौकीदार के पद पर
जू०हा० स्कूल, बडागाींव ववकास क्षेत् अतनायाीं
में की गयी, जजसमें आपका असर्कथन है
कक उक्त तनयुक्त पद पर आप द्वारा
ददनाींक २०.०१.१९८२ को सिता योगदान
ककया था। ददनाींक २०.०१.१९८२ के उपरान्त
आप द्वारा बी०एड०(व्यवसातयक प्रसिक्षण)
प्राप्त करने हेतु ववर्ागीय अनुमतत तथा
अवैततनक
अवकाि
लेकर
बी०एड०
(व्यवसातयक प्रसिक्षण) उत्तीणा ककया। पुनः
ववर्ाग द्वारा मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में
आपकी
तनयुजक्त
प्राथसमक
ववद्यालय
बादौल ववकास क्षेत् अतनायाीं में सहायक
अध्यापक के पद पर की गयी तथा आप
द्वारा ददनाींक १६.०८.१९८६ को कायार्ार
ग्रहण ककया गया।

अतः
उक्त
पररजस्थतत
को
दृजटटगत रखते हुये तत्काल प्रर्ाव से
आपको आदेसित ककया जाता है कक आप
तनमनाींककत असर्लेख एक सप्ताह के अऩ्दर
अद्योहस्ताक्षर कायाालय में प्राप्त कराना
सुतनजचचत करें।

१. चौकीदार पद हेतु आवेददत
पत्ावल की छायाप्रतत।

२. चौकीदार पद के तनयुजक्त पत्
की छायाप्रतत।

३. चौकीदार के पद पर की गयी
ददनाींक २०.०१.१९८२ की कायार्ार ग्रहण
आख्या की छायाप्रतत।

४. सिता असर्लेख मूल रूप में।

५. बी०एड०(व्यवसातयक प्रसिक्षण)
ववर्ागीय अनुमतत तथा अवैततनक अवकाि
स्वीकृतत आदेि की छायाप्रतत।

६. अध्यापक तनयुजक्त ससमतत का
तनणाय ददनाींक ०३.०७.१९८६ की छायाप्रतत।

७. सहायक अध्यापक पद हेतु
आवेददत पत्ावल की छायाप्रतत।

८. सहायक अध्यापक के पद का
तनयुजक्त पत् की छायाप्रतत।

९. सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर
की गयी ददनाींक १६.०८.१९८६ की कायार्ार
ग्रहण आख्या की छायाप्रतत।

१०. ऐसा कोई आवचयक असर्लेख
जजसे आप देना चाहते है।

नोटः- यदद आप द्वारा तनिााररत
समयावधि
में
उल्लेंखखत
असर्लेख
अद्योहस्ताक्षर कायाालय में प्राप्त नह ीं
कराये जाते है, तो ववर्ागीय कायावाह अमल
में लायी जायेगी।
ह० अप०
(अमबर ष कुमार)
जजला बेससक सिक्षा अधिकार ,
बुलन्दिहर।"

10.
A
three-member
inquiry
committee was constituted by an order
dated 25.02.2019 of the District Basic
Education Officer, Bulandshahar and the
petitioner was granted opportunity to
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submit his written reply/explanation, by
means of a notice/communication dated
18.03.2019, which is being reproduced
below:-

"कायाालय खण्ड सिक्षा अधिकार ववकास
क्षेत् डडबाई।
पत्ाींक/ २०१८-१९
ददनाींक-१८.०३.२०१९

श्री सिवदत्त िमाा प्रिानाध्यापक

उच्च
प्राथसमक
ववद्यालय
सलेमपुर पहाडगढ

ववकास क्षेत् अरतनयाीं।

कायाालय जजला बेससक सिक्षा
अधिकार बुलन्दिहर के कायाालय आदेि
पत्ाींक
पत्ाींक/प्रबन्ि/१६४०४-०८/२०१८-१९
ददनाक २५.०२.२०१९ के द्वारा आपकी
तनयुजक्त से समबींधित प्रकरण की ववस्तृत
जॉच हेतु जााँच ससमतत गठन कर जााँच
आख्या उपलब्ि कराये जाने हेतु आदेसित
ककया गया है। आदेि में आप द्वारा मृतक
आधश्रत के रूप में अनुकमपा के आिार पर
जू०हा० स्कूल, बडागाींव ववकास क्षेत् अरतनयाीं
जनपद बुलन्दिहर में चौकीदार के पद र्र
तनयुजक्त प्राप्त कर लेने के उपरान्त तथ्यों
को तछपाते हुये पुनः सहायक अध्यापक के
पद पर प्राथसमक ववद्यालय बादौल ववकास
क्षेत् अरतनयाीं में तनयुजक्त प्राप्त करने का
उल्लेख ककया गया है। इस प्रकार आपके
ऊपर मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में एक बार
तनयुजक्त प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त तथ्य
गोपन कर द्ववतीय तनयुजक्त प्राप्त करने
का आरोप है।

अतः
आप
उक्त
आरोप
के
समबन्ि
में
अपना
सलखखत
पक्ष
/
स्पटट करण, जजसमें दोनो तनयुजक्तयों से
समबींधित आप द्वारा आवेददत पत्ावल ,
तनयुजक्त पत्, कायार्ार ग्रहण आख्या व
अपने बचाव से समबींधित अन्य साक्ष्य
(यदद कोई हो) पत् प्राजप्त के तीन ददन के
अन्दर पींजीकृत डाक से अथवा स्वींय
कायाालय में उपजस्थत होकर प्रस्तुत करना
सुतनजचचत करें। आप द्वारा तनिााररत
समयावधि के अन्तगात प्रस्तुत सलखखत पक्ष
/
स्पटट करण
पर
पर क्षणोपरान्त
तनयमानुसार जााँच आख्या जजला बेससक
सिक्षा अधिकार बुलन्दिहर महोदय को
प्रवषत की जायेगी। यदद आप द्वारा अपना
सलखखत पक्ष / स्पटट करण तनिााररत
समयावधि के अन्तागत प्रस्तुत नह ीं कराया
जाता है, तो यह मानते हुये कक आपके ऊपर
लगाये गये आरोप सत्य है, तद्नुसार जााँच
आख्या जजला बेससक सिक्षा अधिकार
बुलन्दिहर महोदय की सेवा में प्रेवषत कर
द जायेगी।
(चन्द र्ूषण प्रसाद) (iq"isUnz dqekj) (izdk'k pUnz)
खण्ड सिक्षा अधिकार खण्ड सिक्षा अधिकार खण्ड
सिक्षा अधिकार
ववकास क्षेत् डडबाई ववकास क्षेत् लखावट ववकास क्षेत्
अगौता"

(emphasis supplied)

11. The inquiry committee submitted
an inquiry report dated 28.03.2019 before
the District Basic Education Officer. A
copy of the inquiry report was placed
before the writ Court alongwith a counter
1 All. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
affidavit filed on behalf of the Staterespondents.
Certain
extracts
of
the
aforesaid inquiry report which have been
noticed in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, are being reproduced herein
below:-

"श्री सिवदत्त िमाा प्रिानाध्यापक
प्राथसमक ववद्यालय सलेमपुर पहाडगढ
ववकास
क्षेत्
अरतनयाीं
द्वारा
प्रस्तुत
आख्या/प्राथाना पत्ों, पत्ावल में उपलब्ि
सेवा पुजस्तकाओीं व अन्य साक्ष्यों के आिार
पर प्रकरण की जााँच आख्या तनमनवत् है-

०१. श्री सिवदत्त िमाा द्वारा अपने
वपता स्व० श्री राम स्वरूप िमाा की मृत्यु
के उपरान्त मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में
जूतनयर हाई स्कूल, बडागाींव ववकास क्षेत्
अरतनयाीं जनपद बुलन्दिहर में चौकीदार के
पद पर की गयी तनयुजक्त के क्रम में
ददनाींक २०.०१.१९८२ को कायार्ार ग्रहण
ककया गया।

०२. चौकीदार के पद पर तनयुजक्त
के समय श्री सिवदत्त िमाा की िैक्षक्षक
योग्यता स्नातक थी।

०३.
इसके
उपरान्त
आपके
कायाालय (कायाालय जजला बेससक सिक्षा
अधिकार बुलन्दिहर)के पत्ाींकःप्रबन्ि/१८३६३७/८६-८७ ददनाींक १६.०८.१९८६ के द्वारा श्री
सिवदत्त
िमाा
की
तनयुजक्त
प्राथसमक
ववद्यालय बादौल ववकास क्षेत् दनकौर
जनपद बुलन्दिहर में सहायक अध्यापक के
पद पर की गयी, जजसके क्रम में श्री सिवदत्त
िमाा पुत् स्व० श्री राम स्वरूप िमाा द्वारा
ददनाींक १६.०८.१९८६ को ह प्राथसमक
ववद्यालय बादौल ववकास क्षेत् दनकौर
जनपद बुलन्दिहर में सहायक अध्यापक के
पद पर कायार्ार ग्रहण ककया गया।

०४. श्री सिवदत्त िमाा द्वारा अपने
प्राथाना पत् ददनाींक २८.१२.२०१८, जो सिक्षा
सधचव
महोदय
बेससक
सिक्षा
ववर्ाग
लखनऊ (उत्तर प्रदेि) को समबोधित है, में
स्पटट उल्लेख ककया गया है कक "कायाालय
जजला बेससक सिक्षा अधिकार बुलन्दिहर
के आदेि सींख्या ६०३४-८/८३-८४ ददनाींक
१३.०२.१९८४ के अनुसार मैनें बी०एड० के
सलये सलखखत अनुमतत माींगी थी, जजसमे
आदेि हुआ कक श्री सिवदत्त िमाा, चौकीदार
जूतनयर हाई स्कूल बडागाींव को उनके
प्राथाना पत् ददनाींक ०६.०२.१९८४ तथा
प्रिानाध्यापक की सींस्तुतत के आिार पर
बी० एड० सिक्षा / िास्त्ी में प्रवेि की
अनुमतत द जाती है जजसके बाद मैनें वषा
१९८४ में अनुक्रमाींक ११६ अपनी बी०एड०
सिक्षा/िास्त्ी में प्राप्त की"। श्री सिवदत्त
िमाा द्वारा उक्त से समबींधित कोई र्ी
साक्ष्य सींलग्न नह ीं ककया गया है। ५. श्री
सिवदत्त िमाा द्वारा अपने प्राथाना पत्
ददनाींक २८.१२.२०१८, जो सिक्षा सधचव
महोदय बेससक सिक्षा ववर्ाग लखनऊ (उत्तर
प्रदेि) को समबोधित हैं, में स्पटट उल्लेख
ककया गया है कक "सहायक अध्यापक के
पद पर मेर तनयुजक्त मेरे आवेदन पत् और
मेर योग्यता के अनुसार प्रदान की गयी
है,ना कक मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में या ककसी
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अन्य कारण का लार् देकर सहायक
अध्यापक के पद पर तनयुक्त ककया है, यह
तनयुजक्त प्राथी को उसकी योग्यता के
मानदींडों को देखकर और मुझे सहायक
अध्यापक पद के सलये उपयुक्त एींव
योग्यता को देखकर द गयी"। श्री सिवदत्त
िमाा द्वारा आवेदन से समबींधित कोई र्ी
साक्ष्य सींलग्न नह ीं ककया गया है।

उक्त के आिार पर तनमन तथ्य
प्रमाखणत हो रहे है-

०१. श्री सिवदत्त िमाा द्वारा अपने
वपता स्व० श्री राम स्वरूप िमाा की मृत्यु
के उपरान्त मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में
जू०हा० स्कूल, बडागाींव ववकास क्षेत् अरतनयाीं
जनपद बुलन्दिहर में चौकीदार के पद पर
तनयुजक्त प्राप्त कर ल गयी।

०२. सिक्षक र्ती तनयमावल के
अनुसार प्राथसमक ववद्यालयों में सहायक
अध्यापक के पद पर र्ती के सलये तत्समय
प्रसिक्षण योग्यता के रूप में बी०एड०
प्रसिक्षण अहा नह ीं था, जजसके कारण श्री
सिवदत्तीं िमाा की सहायक अध्यापक के पद
पर सामान्य र्ती में ककया गया चयन
तनयम ववरुद्ि है।

०३.
श्री
सिवदत्त
िमाा
की
तनयुजक्त मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में सहायक
अध्यापक के पद पर होना र्ी तनयम
ववरुद्ि है, क्योंकक इनके द्वारा पूवा में ह
मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में चौकीदार के पद
पर तनयुजक्त का लार् प्राप्त ककया जा चुका
है।अतः जााँच ससमतत की जााँच आख्या
आवचयक कायावाह हेतु सेवा में सादर
प्रेवषत है।

सींलग्न - पत्ावल ।

(चन्द र्ूषण प्रसाद) (iq"isUnz dqekj) (izdk'k
pUnz)
खण्ड सिक्षा अधिकार खण्ड सिक्षा अधिकार खण्ड
सिक्षा अधिकार
ववकास क्षेत् डडबाई ववकास क्षेत् लखावट ववकास क्षेत्
अगौता"

(emphasis supplied)

12. On the basis of inquiry report and
the available facts, the District Basic
Education Officer, Bulandshahar, by an
order
dated
28.03.2019,
which
was
impugned in the writ petition, cancelled the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
with
immediate effect. Certain portions of the
aforesaid order which have been noticed by
the learned Single Judge in the judgment
under appeal are being extracted below:-

"जााँच ससमतत द्वारा प्रस्तुत जााँच
आख्या से स्पटट है कक श्री सिवदत्त िमाा
द्वारा असर्लेखों तथा तथ्यों को छुपाकर
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर बी०एड०
योग्यता के आिार पर तनयुजक्त प्राप्त की
जबकक अध्यापक सेवा तनयमावल १९८१
र्ाग ०४- अहाताये के परन्तुक ८ के
अन्तगात िैक्षक्षक अहाताऐ तनमनवत है-

०१ . अध्यापक पद हेतु िैक्षक्षक
योग्यता-माध्यसमक
सिक्षा
पररषद
उत्तर
प्रदेि की इींटरमीडडएट पर क्षा या राज्य
सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त
कोई अन्य पर क्षा जजसमें यथाजस्थतत
ववज्ञान, गखणत, कॉफ्ट या ववसिटट र्ाषा का
1 All. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
कोई एक ववषय रहा हो जजससे उसकी ऐसी
पर क्षा में प्रयोजनाथा पर क्षा ल गयी हो।

०२.
प्रसिक्षण
अहाता
जजसके
अन्तगात बेससक अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्.
दहन्दुस्तानी अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्, जूतनयर
अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्, अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्
या सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्यता
प्राप्त कोई अन्य प्रसिक्षण पाठ्यकम र्ी
हो।

श्री सिवदत्त िमाा द्वारा अपने
वपता की मृत्यु के उपरान्त वषा १९८२ में
मृतक आधश्रत के रूप में अनुकमपा के
आिार पर चौकीदार के पद पर तनयुजक्त
प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त वषा १९८६ में तथ्यों
को छुपाकर तथा अध्यापक पद की
आवचयक अहाताऐ प्राप्त न होने पर र्ी
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर तनयुजक्त
प्राप्त ककया जाना अवैिातनक है।

अतः इस कायाालय के पत्ाींकः
प्रबन्ि
/
१८३६-३७/८६-८७
ददनाींक
१६.०८.१९८६ से श्री सिवदत्त िमाा द्वारा
सहायक अध्यापक (प्राथसमक ववद्यालय) के
पद की प्रसिक्षण योग्यता न रखते हुये र्ी
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर प्राप्त की
गयी तनयुजक्त को तत्काल प्रर्ाव से तनरस्त
ककया जाता है।"

(emphasis supplied)

13. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
order dated 28.03.2019 cancelling his
appointment, the petitioner preferred a writ
petition which has been dismissed in terms
of the judgment under appeal.

14. Learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition has recorded
his reasoning and conclusion in the
following manner:-

"४. पक्षों के ववद्वान अधिवक्ता
की बहस को श्रवण ककया गया एवीं पत्ावल
का ध्यानपूवाक पररिीलन ककया गया।
वतामान प्रकरण मे यह अवववाददत है कक,
याधचकाकताा १०.११.१९८१ को मृतक आधश्रत
के रूप में चौकीदार के पद पर तनयुजक्त
हुआ और उसके प्राथाना पत् पर, अवैततनक
अवकाि पर उसे बी.एड. (सिक्षा िास्त्ी) की
सिक्षा प्राप्त करने की अनुमतत द गयी।
इसके उपरान्त कब उसने चौकीदार के पद
से त्याग पत् ददया और ककस प्रकक्रया के
अींतगात
पररषद य
अध्यापकों
की
तनयुजक्त/पदोन्नतत
ससमतत
ने
उसको
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर तनयुजक्त कर
ददया, इसका पत्ावल पर कोई साक्ष्य नह ीं
है। यह र्ी जानकार नह ीं है कक यह नवीन
तनयुजक्त थी अथवा पदोन्नतत। यह र्ी
अस्वीकार नह ीं ककया जा सकता कक बी.एड,
सहायक अध्यापक की अहाता नह ीं है।
उसकी अहाता बी.ट .सी. है जो याधचकाकताा
के पास नह ीं है। अतः वो सहायक अध्यापक
के पद के सलए आरमर् से ह अहा नह ीं
था।"

(emphasis supplied)

15. The learned Judge, held that the
appointment of the petitioner was against
the rules; however, since he had worked for
a period of 32 years and was close to his
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
age of superannuation, the writ petition was
disposed of without interfering in the order
impugned, by providing that the payments
made to the petitioner towards salary and
other allowances would not be recovered.

16. Contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-petitioner is
based primarily on the assertion that the
petitioner having worked on the post of
Assistant Teacher for a fairly long period,
the cancellation of appointment could not
have been ordered at this stage particularly
when the petitioner was to retire from
service
upon
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation. As regards the lack of the
requisite training qualification i.e. BTC, it
was urged that at that point of time there
was shortage of BTC trained teachers,
consequently it was a practice in the basic
schools to appoint teachers having a
qualification of B.Ed.

17.
Controverting
the
aforesaid
submissions learned counsel appearing for
the State-respondents and the Basic
Shiksha Parishad have argued that the
petitioner's
appointment
as
Assistant
Teacher was illegal inasmuch as he did not
possess
the
prescribed
training
qualification
at
the
time
of
his
appointment. It has been pointed out that
despite ample opportunity to produce the
relevant documentary evidence in regard
to his assertion that he had obtained the
B.Ed. degree after obtaining permission
from the concerned authority and also to
support his claim with regard to his
appointment having been validly made by
following the due selection procedure
under the relevant rules, the petitioner
could
not
adduce
any
material
to
demonstrate that his appointment had been
validly made or that he possessed the
requisite qualification for the post.

18. It is also submitted that the
petitioner having once been appointed on
compassionate grounds on the post of
Chowkidar/Chaprasi in a recognized basic
school, he could not have obtained
appointment
again
on
compassionate
grounds on the post of Assistant Teacher.

19. The principal issue, which arises
for consideration, is as to whether in the
light of the admitted position that the
petitioner
having
not
possessed
the
necessary qualification for the post of
Assistant Teacher, the appointment granted
to him without following due procedure,
could be held to be valid.

20. The other issue, which would arise
for consideration, would be as to whether
the petitioner, having once availed the
benefit of appointment on compassionate
grounds
on
the
post
of
Chaukidar/Chaprasi,
could
claim
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher again on compassionate grounds.

21. In the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Umrao Singh, it was held that once a
person
is
granted
compassionate
appointment and he accepts it, the right to
claim further appointment on a higher post
under the same scheme is extinguished.
Relvant paragraphs of the said judgment
are reproduced as under:-

"8. Admittedly the respondent's
father died in harness while working as
Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on
16-3-1988.
The
respondent
filed
an
application
on
8-4-1988
for
his
appointment on compassionate ground as
Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the
availability
of
vacancy.
On
a
consideration of his plea, he was
appointed to the post of LDC by order
1 All. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the
appointment as LDC. Therefore, the
right
to
be
considered
for
the
appointment on compassionate ground
was
consummated.
No
further
consideration on compassionate ground
would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be
a
case
of
"endless
compassion".
Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector
of Police is one thing, the process of
selection is yet another thing. Merely
because of the so-called eligibility, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court was
persuaded to the view that direction be
issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules
which has no application to the facts of this
case.

9. Since both the sides relied on
Naresh Kumar Bali's case [(1994) 4 SCC
448 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 909 : (1994) 27
ATC 611 : JT (1994) 4 SC 184] , we will
now refer to the same. We had indicated
our mind in that very ruling in paragraph
15 of the said judgment. It reads as under:
(SCC p. 452, para 15)

"Though the respondent claimed
that he had applied for the post of a teacher
the Subordinate Service Selection Board
had not chosen him for the post of teacher
because he did not have the requisite
qualification. In fact, the respondent did not
object to his appointment as a clerk and his
claim for consideration for the post of
teacher was one year after his appointment.
Thus, the appointment on compassionate
ground as per the scheme had been
completed."

(emphasis supplied)

22. A similar view was also taken in
State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar
Bali; paragraph 15 thereof is as under:-

"15. We have set out the factual
background in full. The letter of the
respondent's
mother
dated
3-8-1988
categorically
states
that
her
son
(respondent) was willing to be appointed as
a clerk. It was on that the appointment
letter, extracted above, came to be issued.
Though the respondent claimed that he
had applied for the post of a teacher the
Subordinate Service Selection Board had
not chosen him for the post of a teacher
because he did not have the requisite
qualification. In fact, the respondent did
not object to his appointment as a clerk
and his claim for consideration for the
post of teacher was one year after his
appointment. Thus, the appointment on
compassionate ground as per the scheme
had been completed. The claim for
appointment as Inspector was never made
earlier. The High Court without even
analysing the circumstances under which
the seven persons mentioned in its
judgment came to be appointed as Police
Officers (ASI or Inspector), straight away
has chosen to conclude that there was
discrimination. We are not in a position to
appreciate this line of reasoning. The
positive finding ought to have been given
whether the case of the respondent was
comparable with those of the seven and
then a finding of discrimination ought to
have been rendered."

(emphasis supplied)

23. In Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs.
State of MP, it was held that seeking
further or upgraded appointment under the
scheme of compassionate appointment
leads to 'endless' compassion which is
against the spirit of such scheme. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are
reproduced as under:-

"5. Now petitioner's grievance is
that since petitioner is Higher Secondary
pass, therefore, he should be given
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment on a Class III post like Ward
Boy, Patwari, Registration Clerk, etc. in
terms
of
the
circular
of
General
Administration Department dated 18-82008.

6. Law in this regard is well
settled that there cannot be an endless
compassion. Once petitioner accepted
appointment on compassionate basis on
a Class IV post then, he cannot seek
upgradation of his appointment after
accepting appointment on a Class IV
post and, therefore, in the light of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh,
(1994) 6 SCC 560, wherein it is held that
once a compassionate appointment was
given and accepted, the right to such
appointment
held
stood
exhausted.
Second consideration for a higher post is
not warranted. Therefore, prayer for grant
of compassionate appointment on a higher
post
after
accepting
compassionate
appointment on a Class IV post, cannot be
granted to the petitioner."

(emphasis supplied)

24. In a similar set of facts in the case
of D. Dinesh Chandra Sharma Vs.
District Inspector of Schools, it has been
observed that eligibility for a higher post
like Assistant Teacher is separate from the
compassionate appointment process and it
must adhere to the requisite qualification
and selection rules. It was stated thus:-

"6. After hearing learned counsel
for the petitioner at length and going
through the entire documents filed along
with the affidavit, we are of the view that
when the father of the petitioner died
petitioner was legally entitled to get an
appointment on compassionate ground and
he was rightly appointed as an assistant
clerk as he was qualified for that post only
having qualification of intermediate only.
The law on compassionate ground is
very clear. It is for the purpose of giving
financial assistance to the dependents
and the family members of the deceased
who was a bread earner and died during
the course of his employment. It is
apparent from the order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, dated
24 April 1998, that the officer concerned
considered the relevant rules and law
reported in 1996 (2) L.L.N. 225 (vide
supra), wherein it has been clearly held that
no person is entitled to claim the benefit
under dying-in-harness rules more than
once. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the petitioner was entitled to get benefit
of dying-in-harness rules for second time
when he became qualified for the post of
assistant teacher. We are of the view that
the case of the petitioner is fully covered by
the
decision
quoted
above
and
the
judgment of the learned Single Judge does
not require any interference in special
appeal."

(emphasis supplied)

25. The question as to whether once
compassionate appointment is accepted,
can there be a second consideration on a
higher post under the same right was
considered in the case of Ashwani Kumar
Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and
it was held that accepting a post on
compassionate ground, even if it is a lower
post, concludes the entitlement to any
subsequent claim for a higher post under
the same scheme.

"10. The question which arises in
this appeal for consideration is whether
once
compassionate
appointment
is
accepted,
can
there
be
a
second
consideration on a higher post under the
same right.
1 All. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401

11. It is an admitted fact that the
appellant
accepted
the
offer,
of
appointment against a Class-III post and
pursuant thereto, he joined the service on
18th February, 1994. We are, therefore, of
the considered view that the appellant,
having
accepted
the
compassionate
appointment against a Class-III post, his
right
to
be
considered
under
the
Act/Regulations is exhausted. The appellant,
at the most, was entitled to be considered for
giving compassionate appointment. It does
not give him indefeasible right to claim
appointment against his choicest post.
Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the appellant cannot now apply or
pursue to reconsider him claim under the
same provision for giving a higher position
keeping in view his qualification.

12. Again in the case of State of
M.P. v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp
(3) SCC 661 : AIR 1994 SC 845 : (1994 AIR
SCW 218), the Apex Court has held that a
person claiming compassionate appointment
has no right to any particular post of his
choice.

13. In view of the exposition of law
by the Apex Court, it stands concluded that
once an incumbent accepts the post offered to
him under the Rules or Regulations governing
compassionate
appointment,
the
right
extended to him under the said Rules or
Regulations, stands exhausted and there
cannot be any second consideration for the
said right."

(emphasis supplied)

26.
The
petitioner,
having
not
possessed
the
requisite
training
qualification, i.e. BTC for being considered
for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher is not disputed.

27. In a similar set of facts, the
question with regard to the requirement of
possessing basic qualifications for the post
of Assistant Teacher was examined in the
case of Mohd. Sartaj Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and, it was observed that in a case
where, admittedly, the appellant did not
hold the training qualification to be
appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher
as prescribed under the relevant rules, the
orders cancelling the appointment could not
be faulted.

28. The position in law with regard to
non-entitlement
of
appointment
on
compassionate grounds more than once, is
fairly well settled. The petitioner was,
therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit
of appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher on compassionate grounds, having
availed the said benefit earlier. The legal
position regarding the other point that once
the basic qualifications for the post in
question, are not fulfilled, no claim can be
made for appointment, also needs no
further elaboration, as it is well settled that
in case where the basic qualifications are
lacking, the person concerned cannot claim
a right for appointment to the post in
question.

29. The fact with regard to the
petitioner, having been granted ample
opportunity
to
produce
material
to
demonstrate that his appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher had been made
after following the due procedure, is not
disputed.

30. Learned Single Judge has taken
due
note
of
the
fact
that
despite
opportunity, the petitioner could not adduce
any evidence to demonstrate that his
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher had been made after following the
relevant statutory rules. It has also been
taken note of that the petitioner did not
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possess the essential training qualification
for being appointed on the said post, a fact
which, at no stage, was disputed by the
petitioner.

31. Having regard to the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that the
order dated 28.3.2019, cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner as Assistant
Teacher cannot be faulted on both counts,
i.e, (i) the petitioner, having admittedly not
possessed
the
requisite
training
qualification as prescribed under the
relevant rules for being considered for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher; and (ii) the petitioner, having
earlier been appointed on compassionate
grounds
on
the
post
of
Chaukidar/Chaprasi, the said right to claim
appointment on compassionate ground
stood exhausted and it would not open to
the petitioner to seek appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher again on
compassionate grounds.

32. The fact that the petitioner had
worked for a fairly long period, has been
duly taken note of by the learned Single
Judge and accordingly while disposing of
the writ petition without interfering in the
order impugned, it has been provided that
the payments made to the petitioner
towards salary and other allowances would
not be recovered.

33. The judgment of the learned Single
Judge, is based on an appreciation of the
facts and the material on record and, after
recording cogent reasons. We are not
persuaded to take a different view in the
matter.

34. The appeal is devoid of merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 402
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 432 of 2024

Padmakar Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi, Sunil Kumar
Dubey

A. Civil Law - Reservation in Recruitment
of Assistant Teachers - Deletion of Carry
Forward Rule - Validity of Appointment -
Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation
for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of
Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act,
1993 - Section 3(5) deleted by U.P. Act
No. 12 of 2016 - By U.P. Act No. 12 of
2016 - sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the
said Act, which provided for carrying
forward of an unfilled reserved vacancy to
the next year, had been deleted
-
Reserved category vacancy could not be
carried forward to the next year - 'Rule of
carry forward' in respect of reservation of
posts in favour of physically handicapped
candidates, being no longer applicable in
view of the omission of sub-section (5) of
Section 3 of the Act, 1993, in terms of the
amending Act of 2016, the filling up of the
said posts by general category candidates,
cannot be said to suffer from any legal
infirmity. (Para 11)
B. Recruitment of Assistant Teachers - In
the
instnat
case
the
advertisement,
provided that in the first round of