Allahabad High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (‘Rules, 1952’) challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated passed by the Single Judge, wherein the Court has accorded a last opportunity to the respondent to clear the physical efficiency test within a period of 30 days and even if she fails, suitable appointment on compassionate basis shall be accorded to her, the division bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ. said that no relaxation in physical examination is accorded even to the direct recruitees and if they do not complete the race in the specific time, they are not selected. Hence, no relaxation is available or to be extended qua the candidate seeking compassionate appointment, who even have a subsequent chance to claim the next lower post within the three months.
Background:
The husband of the respondent namely, died in harness while working as Head Constable in Civil Police in 2021. Thereafter, on account of unfortunate demise of her husband, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment and her application was entertained by the police department for the post of Sub-Inspector and she was asked to undergo the physical efficiency test. However, the respondent could not complete the running within the stipulated time as fixed by the Police department. Consequently, she has approached this Court to consider her claim qua the compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness. Rules, 1974 ( ‘the Rules, 1974’) for the post of Sub-Inspector as per her qualification by filing a petition, wherein, the Single Judge taking sympathetic view accorded a last opportunity to the respondent to clear the physical efficiency test and entitled her for a suitable appointment on compassionate basis in case she fails to qualify in the physical efficiency test. Thus, the State filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court said that no relaxation in physical examination is accorded even to the direct recruitees and if they do not complete the race in the specific time, they are not selected. Hence no relaxation is available or to be extended qua the candidate seeking compassionate appointment, who even have a subsequent chance to claim the next lower post within the three months.
The Court noted that in the present matter the admit card was issued by the State for physical test, which took place on 04-01-2024 and she had participated in the physical examination without any objection, compulsion or duress and with her own consent and freewill, which is crystal clear from the declaration form dated 31-12-2022 filled by her. In such an admitted situation, in case, she failed in physical efficiency test then under the compassionate employment, she could not ask for a second chance to undergo the physical efficiency test again.
Examining the term ‘precedent’, the Court said that there is no express provision, but by convention the decisions of a High Court are binding on all lower courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. Similarly, a decision of a higher Bench, is binding on the lower Bench.
The Court said the decision in State of U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh , relied on by the respondent, contained that it shall not be treated as a precedent. Thus, the Court opined that the Single Judge committed an error in law in following the ratio of an order, passed by another Bench of same strength which itself contained that the order shall not be treated as ‘precedent’.
After relying on Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P., and State of U.P. v. Premlata, , the Court said that the respondent was not liable to be offered the post of Sub Inspector. Moreover, once having failed the physical efficiency test, no second chance for qualifying the same could have been offered to a candidate claiming compassionate appointment.
Thus, the Court while setting aside the impugned order, directed that as the respondent has failed to qualify the physical examination for the post of Sub-Inspector, it will remain open for her to apply afresh seeking compassionate appointment on any other suitable post in the Department, which may be offered to her as per her eligibility and suitability.
The Bench also directed that if the respondent makes any such application within four weeks from today, the same must be considered, considering the Government Order dated 18-09-2015 within the next three weeks. Further, if the respondent is considered entitled to any other post by the department, the same has to be offered to her within a period of 30 days’ from the date of the decision to be taken by the authority.
[State of UP v. Geeta Rani, Special Appeal Defective No. 380 of 2024, Order dated 15-05-2024]
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7554/2021
The post appeared first on .