HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12425 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Ms. Swati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the State,Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the record. Present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the opposite party no. 3 dated 25.09.2025 (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the Class-III post under U.P. Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974." Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Vibha Rani, wife of Narendra Mohan Agnihotri, while working on the post of Head Mistress in Primary Vidyalaya, Haibat Mau, Block Amawa, District-Raebareli, died on 25-04-2021, while being infected with Corona Virus (Covid-2019). She submitted that thereafter, the petitioner applied through online, for his appointment, under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Km. Swati, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Durgesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivam Sharma Himanshu Agnihotri .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 1974(hereafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") on 08-04-2023 and subsequent thereof, on 15-01-2025 and finally, the manual application was given on 22-09-2025, whereafter, the order impugned has been passed in a cursory manner and on wrong premises. She argued that the District Basic Education Officer, Raebareli, has given two reasons for rejection of the appointment sought by the petitioner under the Rules, 1974. The first ground is that the post of clerk is not vacant in the institution and secondly, the petitioner could only get an appointment on a Class -IVth post. She further argued that both the reasons are unsustainable because if the post is not available, the same can be created as supernumerary post as per the provisions of law and further the appointment of the petitioner cannot be declined on the ground that he has sought appointment on some other higher post than the post for which he is entitled for appointment under the Rules, 1974. She added that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is son/legal heir of the deceased employee and he is entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules,1974. She further submitted that the petitioner has raised his claim within five years of given period and therefore, the rejection of his claim for appointment under Rules,1974, is unsustainable. Thus, submission is that the order impugned dated 25-09-2025 may be quashed. On the other hand, Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer submits that the petitioner while applying for appointment under Rules,1974, did not disclose that whether his father is employed, either in government or private sector and what is the source of income available with him ? Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of record, it is apparent from the order dated 25-09-2025 that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the grounds that the post of clerk is not available in district-Raebareli in Basic Education Department and further the petitioner could have been appointed on a Class-IVth post and he applied for Class III post. WRIA No. 12425 of 2025 2 When this court examines the aforesaid ground of rejection of the claim of the petitioner, it emerges that if the post is not available, wherein the legal heir of a deceased employee is entitled for appointment, the supernumerary post can be created for such appointment, if entitlement is there. It is also noticed that the second reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not apply for a Class-IVth post which infact a nonest ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner applied within time period prescribed as five years; is an admitted fact. Further, it is wisdom of the District Basic Education Officer, who could after considering the relevant prevailing laws, have provided the appointment to the petitioner under the Rules, 1974 and if such legal heir has sought appointment on any other post, that is not a hurdle for offering appointment for which, such legal heir is entitled for. In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 25-09-2025 is erroneous and perverse in the eyes of law and thus, the same is quashed. The District Basic Education Officer, Raebareli is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Rules, 1974 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, with a speaking and reasoned order. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the instant writ petition is allowed. October 28, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 12425 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench