Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—The petitioner’s father late Shri Rajendra Pal Singh Sirohi was serving as Sub-Inspector in civil police and was posted at P.S. Bramhpuri Distt. Meerut. He expired on 16.10.2000, leaving behind the petitioner and his three sisters. All the children were minor at the time of death. The petitioner’s mother Smt. Ratan Kaur informed the Senior Superintendent of Police on 24.2.2001 that his son is studying in Class-IX and is aged 16 years. On attaining majority the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (In short the Rules of 1974) as Sub-Inspector in civil police. It is alleged that the petitioner was qualified and was found medically fit by the Chief Medical Officer on 29.6.2006 for appointment. After two years vide letter dated 17.10.2008 he was informed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Establishment) for the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Allahabad that he has been approved for appointment as constable and that he should report for training.

2. It is stated in para 12 of the writ petition that decision to appoint the petitioner as constable and not Sub-Inspector for which he had applied was taken on the basis of the resolutions in the meeting of Police/ Provincial Arms Constabulary Recruitment Board chaired by the Director General of Police in its meeting on 20.9.2006 and 25.6.2007 that in such case the appointment is to be considered for the post of constable. It is contended that the petitioner is eligible as he is qualified and is physically fit to be appointed as Sub­Inspector, Civil Police.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Rajkumar Pundir v. State of U.P., (2004) 3 ESC 1871 (All) and Mukesh Shukla and 30 others v. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4746 of 2008, connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63543 of 2008, Amit Choudhary v. State of U.P. decided on 7.8.2008) in support of his submission that the respondents were required to consider the petitioner for appointment as Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and not as constable and that he has been discriminated in appointment as constable.

4. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner has accepted the appointment as constable or that he had joined and has taken the training.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has joined and is now stopped from claiming the appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. Let the respondents file a counter affidavit in four weeks. The rejoinder affidavit may be filed in a week, thereafter.

6. The law with regard to compassionate appointment, interpreting various set of rules is fairly well settled and may be summarised as follows :

7. In Smt. Susma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468, the Supreme Court in the matter of appointment of the petitioner as clerk in the office of Director General, Border Road observed that, “purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant”.

8. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another, (1994) 2 SCC 718, the Supreme Court held that the Court could not have given directions for compassionate appointment. In para 17 it was held, “whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate ground. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the corruption in a piquant si