Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12876-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 93 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Respondent :- Vishwaroop Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025-Delay Condonation Application) 1. Heard 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant Special Appeal. 3. No objection has been filed against this application. 4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient. 5. Application is allowed and delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. (Order on Appeal) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the State and Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Writ Court in Writ-A No.2058 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the sole respondent arising out the order dated 23.02.2024 terminating his services, was allowed. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the sole respondent consequent upon the death of his father Shri Ram Janam Singh applied for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 disclosing therein all the relevant facts. The employment of his mother in the same department on a Class-III post was also specifically disclosed in the application so made. 4. In the normal course, such an application by virtue of Rule 5 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 ought not to have been entertained as the respondent's mother was in Government Service. 5. Notwithstanding the disclosures made in the application, the candidature of the respondent was considered and he was appointed on a Class-III post in the year 2012. The respondent on the basis of his satisfactory service was thereafter confirmed on a Group-C post. Not only that the State has confirmed the service of the respondent but he has further earned promotion on a higher post of Senior Assistant on 03.10.2019. 6. The State, for all these years, did not wake up to find any infirmity in the appointment so made and all of a sudden in the year 2022, on the basis of a complaint, the State woke up and issued a show cause notice to the respondent. 7. The respondent appears to have submitted his explanation stating clearly that there was no concealment on his part and the employment obtained by him was after making all the necessary disclosures in the application filed by him. 8. The rejection of the application with the passing of an order dated 23.02.2024 gave rise to Writ-A No.2058 of 2024 before this Court and this Court having regard to the contentions put forth by the parties has finally allowed the writ petition placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Md. Zamil Ahmed v. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2016) 12 SCC 342. The relevant part of the judgment is also extracted in the impugned judgement dated 15.10.2024 as a part of paragraph-12. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the criterion of recruitment as postulated under Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 could not be compromised by the Appointing Authority. 10. It is well settled that the essential conditions of recruitment cannot be relaxed in the matters of recruitment but in the present case, an equitable consideration comes in once it is found that a young person after seeking employment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 may have settled in life by embracing many more social obligations towards his own family and at this stage became overage for seeking employment elsewhere under the State Government. 11. It is not a case of open selection where the conditions of recruitment would impinge upon the rights of the other eligible candidate affecting the comparative merit. 12. All these aspects of the matter appear to have been considered while considering the claim of the petitioner by the Writ Court while allowing the writ petition. 13. We equally notice that the erring Officer who has made the appointment was not proceeded against for the wrong committed by him and it is in this background that the respondent, who has not concealed any fact in the application made, is rather subjected to a severe consequence. The State Government, in such a situation, must visit the erring Officials with a stern message in absence of which, the decision taken against the employee concerned does not appear to be in good faith and does not appear to be the right approach of rectifying the mistakes committed by the Officers of the State discharging onerous and responsible duties. 14. In these circumstances and in absence of any just material placed before us for making necessary rectification of the wrong, we are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter and the Special Appeal arising out of the judgment impugned herein deserves to rejected. 15. The Special Appeal is accordingly rejected. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 4.3.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench