Allahabad High Court
Saurabh Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 19 August, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12105 of 2019 Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector after his father died while on duty in an accident on 16.11.2015. Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment remained pending for fairly long. Ultimately the authorities initiated process to consider such application and 5th December, 2018 was fixed as the date for physical efficiency test. Petitioner states that he had suffered a fracture and Orthopaedic Surgery was performed on his Knee on 16.11.2018 and petitioner was advised six weeks bed rest. Petitioner informed the authorities by way of a representation of such fact and for the deferment of date. Next date was fixed for the purpose as 20.1.2019. Petitioner on that date also was not fully fit and a certificate of the concern Doctor/Surgeon dated 18.4.2019 was placed, according to which petitioner was advised further rest on account of surgery undertaken. The authorities apparently have not fixed any date thereafter and consequently the petitioner has approached this Court.
In the facts and circumstances, it is submitted that petitioner could not participate in the test due to compelling circumstances and the authorities ought to take a liberal view in the matter. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner upon an order passed in similar facts and circumstances in Service Single No.13602 of 2019, dated 14.5.2019, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the fact that the petitioner's name is Ravita Gautam although in the list of fresh cases the name has been shown as Ravindra Gautam.
The office is directed to issue a copy of the order with the corrected name.
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to conduct physical efficiency test afresh for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on account of the fact that the petitioner was suffering from illness on the date when the physical efficiency test was scheduled.
Similar controversy had already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 26.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.15721 (S/S) of 2016, which is reproduced hereinafter :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No counter affidavit has been filed yet but the instructions have been received by the learned standing counsel. A copy of the said instructions has been placed before the Court, the same be placed on record. The instructions merely reiterates the reasons already given in the impugned order, therefore, there is no need to call for any counter affidavit.
The instructions received by the learned standing counsel do not disclose any justifiable cause for not acceding to the request of the petitioner for fixing a date for physical test as on the date already fixed, the petitioner was not well and was suffering from Jaundice and had been advised three weeks rest which is evident from the documents at page no. 30-31 of the paper book, therefore, in these circumstances the contention that on the Website it had been specifically mentioned that no second chance would be given to the candidate is of no avail as if a person is suffering from Jaundice obviously he could not participate in physical races etc. and specially as the consideration being for compassionate appointment, a compassionate view ought to have been taken into the matter, as such, the impugned order containing the aforesaid reason is hereby quashed. The respondents shall fix a fresh date for a physical examination for the petitioner afresh for compassionate appointment. Let this be done within three weeks and thereafter within next three weeks the physical examination shall be held. Consequences shall fallow as per law.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
Since grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is similar to one which has already been adjudicated hereinabove, the benefit of the aforesaid order dated 26.4.2017 shall also be made available to the petitioner in the same terms.
The Writ Petition is disposed of finally subject to the observations made herein above."
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the authorities have concluded the exercise for physical efficiency test. It is stated that at this stage, it would not be possible for the authorities to consider the petitioner's request.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that sufficient reasons were placed by the petitioner before the authorities for his inability to appear in the physical efficiency test. If the petitioner had suffered fracture and was operated upon, he cannot be expected to take part in physical efficiency test. The authorities, therefore, cannot be permitted to deny consideration to petitioner's claim in that regard. Petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment.
Writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant one further opportunity to the petitioner to appear in physical efficiency test, and thereafter to process his claim, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.8.2019 Anil