The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of 'distress' and 'immediate hardship' is a condition precedent for seeking compassionate appointment, and the appointment should not be for a short term or on a temporary basis.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Manoj Mishra, Advocate, representing the Petitioner and Sri S. K. Garg, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Petition is finally decided at the admission stage as contemplated under rules of Court and also agreed by the learned Counsels for the parties.

( 2 ) ONE Shyam Narain Pandey (father of the petitioner) holding a Class HI post in a Department of Government of U. P. died on 29. 6. 1999. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, disclosing that he had passed Intermediate Examination, 1988 from U. P. Board. There is no explanation for the period between 1988 to June, 1999. Petitioner was given compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules vide appointment letter dated 18. 4. 2000/ Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition mentioning that services of the Petitioner were absolutely temporary and liable to be terminated any time without prior notice. It also recited that Petitioners services were initially on probation of one year. Petitioner accepted, along with above conditions, the offer vide said appointment letter (Writ Petition Annexure-6) without raising objection regarding recital in the appointment letter to the effect that his appointment- (i) on Class IV post was temporary and/or (ii) not in consonance with regard to his academic qualification which entitled him to an appointment on Class III post.

( 3 ) VIDE Para 9 of the Writ Petition it is alleged that Petitioner filed representation dated 30. 8. 2000 as well as representations dated 22. 9. 2000, 9. 11. 2000, 7. 3. 2001 and 13. 6. 2001, filed as annexures-7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 respectively. Petitioner remained contended for about 16 months (30-3-2001 till filing of Writ Petition) except for filing alleged representations and has now approached the Court by means of this Writ Petition. It may be noted that the Petitioner has failed to disclose as to how, when and in what manner alleged Representations were filed. Endorsement on it does not show who received it. Endorsement on Annexure-8 to Writ Petition shows that it is got received in some Complaint Cell.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that present Writ Petition, as far as the relief regarding appointment on a higher post in Class III post is concerned, is not pressed.

( 5 ) EVEN otherwise, the Petitioner having once accepted an appointment on Class IV post, cannot be permitted to re-open the closed chapter.

( 6 ) PETITIONER, once appointed on Class IV post in the past, cannot claim in future, in view of his educational qualification, reconsideration of his case on Class III post. Having accepted appointment on Class IV Post, may be under unavoidable and compelling situation, question of "distress" or "immediate hardship," which is a condition precedent for compassionate appointment, does not arise. Apex Court in 1998 (33) ALR 468 (SC), Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar and this Court in 1999 (83) FLR 617 (All) held that existence of "distress" is sine qua non for seeking compassionate appointment.

( 7 ) THIS Court takes notice of the judgment and order dated 11. 12. 2000 passed by learned Single judge in Writ Petition No. 1846 (S/s) of 1996, Sudhakar Srivastava v. Deputy Director of education (Secondary), IX Region, Faizabad and Ors. , wherein, a learned Single Judge made a sweeping observation to the effect that-if a person, under compelling circumstances, accepted compassionate appointment on Class IV post on being offered to him that will not deprive such a person in future to claim a higher post according to his educational qualifications.

( 8 ) THE above conclusion is without referring to the aims and objects, and various provisions of dying in Harness Rules as well as ignoring binding precedents rendered by Supreme Court directly touching the issue in question. The said judgment, therefore, cannot be treated as a binding precedent having force of law and have to be treated a