Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7965 of 2009 Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Pandey S/O Late Shri Sabapati Pandey Respondent :- Director Of Higher Education U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.R.Masoodi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra learned counsel holding brief of
Mr. A.R. Masoodi and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh on behalf of
opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for
the opposite party no. 1.
The case of the petitioner is that his father died on 6.11.2005 and
the petitioner applied to be appointed under Dying in Harness
Rules. Earlier the appointment which was given to the petitioner
by the Director, Education on 30.4.2008 was canceled and now
vide order dated 12.6.2009 he has been directed to join with the
opposite party no. 3.
The opposite party nos. 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit.
Counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 says that according to
the Government Order dated 21st November 1995 in clause 4 it
has been stated that a committee has to be constituted and no such
committee was constituted according to him and in clause 5 it has
been stated that anybody who applies for appointment under Dying
in Harness Rules has to be first accommodated in the same very
college where his father was working and only in case there is no
vacancy in that college then the authorities can direct the applicant
to be appointed in any other college. His argument is that there is
already a post vacant in the college where the father of the
petitioner was working and, as such, he should be granted
appointment there. He claimed in paragraph 6 of the counter
affidavit.
I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the rival
parties.
The case of the opposite party is totally unsustainable because it is
not the case of the opposite party no. 3 that there is no vacancy in
his college. The case of the opposite party is that there is vacancy
in the college of opposite party no. 2 and hence, there is a violation
of the Government Order. This aspect of the matter can be best
looked either by the District Inspector of schools or by the
-2-
Director, Education who has passed orders after due consideration
and this is the second order by which the petitioner is being given
appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. The opposite party
nos. 3 and 4 have no valid and legal reasons to defy the orders of
the Director of Higher Education and they are directed to comply
the order dated 12.6.2009.
The Director is also given the liberty to take proper action
permissible under law, if the order passed by him for appointment
under Dying in Harness Rules are not complied.
List this case after three weeks.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010
Om.