Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing advertisement No. 1265/P-4/Stha/Gram Panchayat Adhikari-Bharti/2013-14 dated 04th September, 2013 whereby 16 vacancies of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in District Jhansi have been advertised. He has also sought a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to consider him for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari.

2. The brief facts, not in dispute, are as under:

3. The petitioner’s father was a Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari and died in harness on 12.6.2005 while posted in Development Block Month, District Jhansi. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “1974 Rules”). He was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 (now revised to Rs.5200-20200) against a supernumerary post since there was no vacancy in the office of District Panchayat Raj Office, Jhansi, vide order dated 24.4.2006. It clearly contemplates that supernumerary post shall continue till a vacancy on the post of Junior Clerk in the office, occur. Consequent to the appointment letter dated 24.4.2006, petitioner joined service and has been discharging duties since then. It is also pleaded that post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari were designated as “Multi Purpose Worker” and ceased to exist hence when petitioner was appointed, hence there was no vacancy of Gram Panchayat Adhikari and he was not appointed on the said post in 2006. However, it was revived vide Government Order dated 22.7.2004 and several persons were appointed/absorbed thereon. Some persons, who were appointed as Junior Clerk, applied for their absorption as Gram Panchayat Adhikari, which was allowed and granting parity, this Court in Writ Petition No. 1094 of 2005 (SS) Braj Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) also issued similar directions vide judgment dated 10.2.2005, which reads as under:

“In this backdrop the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in like manner are also entitled for being considered for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari.

Learned Standing Counsel, in opposition, argued that in view of the fact that the petitioners having been appointed as clerk on compassionate grounds and having accepted the same, subsequently cannot turn around and claim appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari as revival of the same at a later stage would not give them any indefeasible right for such appointment.

In view of the fact that subsequently vide Annexures 10 to 12, upon revival of the posts in question, the candidates were considered and were appointed on compassionate grounds, therefore, in the circumstances, it is hereby directed that the opposite parties shall also consider, within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served on the opposite parties, the case of the petitioners for appointment/absorption on the posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari against the existing posts.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is finally disposed of.”

4. It is contended that present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit. He also drew my attention to the letter dated 24.7.2009 sent by District Panchyat Raj Officer, Jhansi to Director Panchayati Raj in which petitioner was shown as surplus staff working on the post of Junior Clerk and contended that since he is surplus staff, he can be absorbed against vacant post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari and therefore, before making any direct recruitment, petitioner should be considered for the same.

5. This Court vide order dated 11.12.2013 required District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jhansi respondent No. 3 to inform whether petitioner is a surplus staff or appointed against a supernumerary post, inasmuch as, a person becomes surplus staff when the post on which he is working is no more existing and he is kept in surplus staff