# State of U.P and others v. Anil Kumar Rathore

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 22
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 555 of 2013
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Virendra Vikram Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-and-others-v-anil-kumar-rathore-42432
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Dr.Manoj Dubey
Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Sri Sanjay Kr. Singh

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Criminal
Appeal-Government
Appeal
against
acquittal
for
of

## Text

22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 555 of 2013

Smt. Meera Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Anuj Kumar (Addl.S.C.)

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226appointment of dealer to run fair price
shop on compassionate ground-rejected
by S.D.M. it should be appointed from
Schedule Caste (S.C.) category village
Pradhan-held-in view of provision under
para 10 (Jha) of G.O. No. 17.08.2002-no
question of fresh appointment-hence
para 10 (Jha) being special rule of
reservation for dependent of the dealer
to be considered-order impugned not
sustainable-quashed.

Held: Para-6

We
are
thus
of
the
view
that
appointment under paragraph 10 (Jha)
of
the
Government
Order
dated
17.08.2002 would not be covered by the
Rule of reservation as it is a special
appointment on compassionate ground
and only condition which has to be
considered is that the deceased-fair price
shop dealer had a good reputation and
the applicant is the dependant of such
deceased-dealer.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents and
perused the record.

2. Time was granted to learned
Standing Counsel to obtain instructions
which he states that he has received. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties,
this writ petition is being finally disposed of
at this stage.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on
the death of her husband, who was the fair
price shop dealer, the petitioner moved an
application for appointment as a dealer on
compassionate ground. Provision of law for
the compassionate appointment has been
made in paragraph 10 (Jha) of the
Government Order dated 17.08.2002. The
said paragraph 10 (Jha) of the Government
Order provides that in case, the fair price
shop dealer had a good reputation, then the
dependent of such dealer may be considered
for appointment as fair price shop dealer. The
dependent has been defined as wife, son and
un-married daughter of the deceased dealer.
The petitioner being the widow of fair price
shop dealer, had applied for appointment as a
dealer under the said provision.

4. By means of the impugned order
dated 5th December, 2012 passed by
respondent No. 2-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
the application of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground has
been rejected merely for the reason that the
dealership of the village in question would be
reserved for Scheduled Caste Category, for
which category the post of Pradhan is
reserved.
1 All] State of U.P and others V. Anil Kumar Rathore
23

5. At this juncture, the question arises
as to what should be the position where the
deceased dealer was of the category other
than that for which reservation of a particular
class/category of society for a fresh dealer
has been provided for. In our opinion, the
policy of reservation for appointment as
dealer will be considered only when a regular
appointment is to be made and not otherwise.
Where the vacancy of any dealership of a fair
price shop has occurred because of the death
of the dealer and the conditions provided in
the Government Order for appointment on
compassionate basis stand fulfilled, the
appointment on compassionate ground is to
be considered first under paragraph 10 (Jha)
of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002.
If any other interpretation than this is given
to the above Government order, the
provision of the Government order shall
become a nullity and the same can be availed
by the dependents of the deceased dealer
only in a case where the dealer was of the
category for which the reservation is
provided and not otherwise. Such can not be
the purpose as obviously para 10 (Jha) of the
Government order has been inserted to
safeguard the interest of the dependents of
the deceased dealer. As such without
considering the position of reservation which
has not been provided for his case of
compassionate appointment, the concerned
authority shall look to the welfare of the
dependents of the deceased dealer, otherwise
the entire purpose of providing for such
appointment
would
be
frustrated.The
interpretation which has been given by the
impugned order is opposed to the public
policy of safeguarding the interests of the
dependents of the deceased-dealer.

6. We are thus of the view that
appointment under paragraph 10 (Jha) of the
Government Order dated 17.08.2002 would
not be covered by the Rule of reservation as
it is a special appointment on compassionate
ground and only condition which has to be
considered is that the deceased-fair price
shop dealer had a good reputation and the
applicant is the dependant of such deceaseddealer.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 5th December, 2012
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
rejecting the application of the petitioner
deserves to be quashed.

8. The writ petition stands allowed and
the order dated 05.12.2012 is quashed. The
respondent No. 2 is directed to take fresh
decision on the application of the petitioner
in the light of the observations made here-inabove,
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
preferably within two months from the date
of filing of certified copy of this order before
respondent No. 2.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANURAG KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2005.

State of U.P.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Anil Kumar Rathore
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Govt.Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dr.Manoj Dubey
Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Sri Sanjay Kr. Singh

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Criminal
Appeal-Government
Appeal
against
acquittal
for
offence
under
section
272/284 I.P.C. On ground-no proper