Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49393 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8775 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gunjan Khare Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Tribunal Thru. Chairman U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya),Sonal Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Counter and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shikhar Aanand, learned counsel for opposite parties. 3. Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2025 to the extent it cancels petitioner's compassionate appointment on Class-III post and provides her fresh appointment on Class IV post. 4. It has been submitted that earlier the petitioner had been granted compassionate appointment vide order dated 21.03.2023 and in terms of relevant rules, she undertook the compulsory typing test on 15.03.2024 in which she was declared unsuccessful whereafter the second typing test took place on 16.07.2025 in which also she was declared unsuccessful whereafter the impugned order has been passed providing her fresh appointment on Class-IV post. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to paragraph-5 of the writ petition to submit that during the second typing test, the office computer which assigned to petitioner malfunctioned which aspect was immediately indicated by petitioner to authorities but was ignored. It was due to the malfunctioning of computer that petitioner was declared unsuccessful. 6. It is therefore submitted that in case petitioner is granted one more opportunity to use her own laptop she would be able to qualify the aforesaid examination. 7. Learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has submitted that in terms of relevant government orders, the procedure as prescribed was strictly adhered to by the opposite parties and once petitioner was unable to clear the first typing test in the year 2024, the second typing test took place only after one year in which she again stood disqualified. 8. It is also submitted that there is no provision for third typing test to be undertaken. 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated herein above are admitted between the parties. 10. The aspect requiring consideration is whether, petitioner can be granted a third opportunity to clear the typing test. It is evident that petitioner had applied and was granted appointment on compassionate basis. Although the contents of paragraph-5 of the writ petition have been denied in counter affidavit but may be a cause of concern in view of the fact that disqualification of petitioner in the second typing test, if even an iota of petitioner's allegations are correct, would have civil consequences upon her appointment. 11. In view of aforesaid only in order to substantiate justice, liberty is granted to the opposite parties to conduct a final typing test with regard to petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before the concerned authority. 12. It is made clear that this would be last opportunity available to petitioner in which the opposite parties may consider permitting petitioner to use her own Laptop/Desktop. 13. This order shall not be treated as a precedent. 14. In view aforesaid, the portion of impugned order dated 21.07.2025 which is under challenge shall be subject to final outcome of the typing test. 15. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench