Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55803 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4777 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jyoti Prakash Pal Respondent :- State Of Up, And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Goswami,Manorama Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Goswami, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Shahi, Advocate for Respondents-3 and 4. 2. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right and consideration for it shall only be on basis of scheme and rules as applicable. 3. In the present case, father of petitioner died in harness on 14.02.2021 and thereafter present petitioner has submitted application for compassionate appointment that he possessed requisite qualification for consideration on a Class-III post. Claim of petitioner was rejected by means of impugned order that since no vacant Class-III post is available, therefore, he was offered appointment on a Class-IV post. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner refers Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter: “5- मृतक के कु टुम्ब के किकसी सदस्य की भत- यकिद इस कियमावली के प्रारम्भ होे के पश्चात किकसी सरकारी सेवक की सेवाकाल में मृत्यु हो जाये तो उसके कु टुम्ब के ऐसे एक सदस्य को जो के न्द्रीय सरकार या राज्य सरकार के अथवा के न्द्रीय सरकार या राज्य सरकार के स्वाकिमत्वाधी या उसके द्वारा कियंकि0त किकसी किगम के अधी पहले से सेवायोजिजत हो, इस प्रयोज के लिलये आवेद करे पर, भत के सामान्य कियमों को शि8शिथल करते हुए , सरकारी सेवा में उपयुक्त सेवायोज प्रदा किकया जायेगा जो राज्य लोक सेवा आयोग के क्षे0ान्तग;त हो, किकन्तु प्रतितबन्ध यह है किक वह सदस्य उस पद के लिलए किवकिहत 8ातिक्षक आह;ता रखता हो तथा वह अन्य प्रकार से भी 2 सरकारी सेवा के लिलए अह; हो। ऐसी ौकरी अकिवलम्ब और य8ा8क्य उसी किवभाग में दी जाी चाकिहये जिजसमें मृत सरकारी सेवक अपी मृत्यु के पूव; सेवायोजिजत था।” 5. By referring above rule, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner possessed qualification for consideration for the post of Class-III and rules prescribe that such consideration be made, therefore, he ought to have been offered appointment on a Class-III post. 6. On a specific query of this Court, whether the reason assigned in impugned order that there is no vacancy available in Class-III, is correct or not, learned counsel refers contents of para 13 of writ petition, which is reproduced hereinafter: “13. That as per the recent notification of the U.P. Government there exits thousands of vacancies in the Education Department in U.P. for the post of clerks and also many of the vacancies has already been published for other posts also, the petitioner deserves the post of Junior Clerk in the concerned department of his deceased father as per his qualification and abilities and not only this if the department gives the post of class fourth employee to the petitioner it would be gross abuse of the process of law and also it looses the dignity of the petitioner and gross infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner which is abuse of the process of law in the interest of justice.” 7. The source of averment made in above referred paragraph is the persons knowledge of deponent, i.e., petitioner, as declared in affidavit and since it is not supported by any document, therefore, Court cannot accept such a vague averment. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-3 and 4 submits that petitioner was offered appointment on a Class-IV post which is still open for a period of three weeks and in case petitioner wants to accept said offer, he can approach the concerned respondent within aforesaid period by submitting online application on portal. 3 9. At this stage, Court also takes note that purpose of compassionate appointment is to tied over the immediate financial crisis as well as the appointment shall be offered only on basis of scheme or rules applicable and it would not be an absolute right of dependent as it has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and others vs. Anusree K.B., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331, Malaya Nanda Sethy v/s State of Orissa and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 and Bank of Baroda and others vs. Baljit Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745. 10. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no illegality in impugned order, therefore, no interference is required. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation with regard to offer of appointment of petitioner on a Class-IV post. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad