Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri Ram Sagar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.4.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of after exchange of affidavits between the parties.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows :

The brother of the petitioner, namely, Anup Kumar Yadav was selected in PAC as Constable on 5.7.2006 and was appointed in 28th Battalion, PAC Itawah. The State Government vide Government Order dated 8.11.2007 had cancelled the various appointments of Constables throughout the State on the ground of mal practices in the recruitment process. The State Government had constituted a High Powered Inquiry Committee to inquire into the matter and finally on the recommendation of High Powered Committee, the State Government had cancelled the recruitment and consequently appointments of more than 18700 personnel were cancelled vide orders dated 11.9.2007, 18.9.2007 and 30.9.2007. It is relevant to mention that none of the aggrieved personnel were noticed or involved in High Powered Enquiry Committee or heard at any time and in one stroke their all appointments were cancelled, large number of writ petitions were filed and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 8.12.2008 in leading Writ Petition No. 45645 of 2007 (Pawan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) had allowed the writ petition, the operative portion of the order dated 8.12.2008 is reproduced herein under :

“121. The aforesaid chart would show that out of about 22,000 personnel selected across the Board, only 40 were detected to have inducted with less than the minimum prescribed standards of physical measurement. It comes 0.18 percent. In the chart annexed as aforesaid, the difference in height which has been noted at some places is between 0.1 to 0.5 centimetres less than the prescribed minimum height. This percentage was negligible.

122. In the aforesaid circular dated 29.6.2007 the DGP had also required the committees to scrutinize the training sheets in the following manner.

“Training sheet of a recruited constable - During the course of the training, training sheets regarding physical efficiency of these recruited constables are drawn up by the Institute at the training centre. They are also subjected to monthly/quarterly/final written tests. Kindly ensure that their training sheets are correctly filled up and answer sheets concerning their written tests are properly evaluated. These training sheets and the copies of the written tests may be summoned by the Enquiry Committee for perusal. If any constable fails in the examination or does not have minimum qualification, such a matter be immediately referred to the Enquiry committee.”

123. In pursuance of the aforesaid, even in the training sheets of monthly, quarterly and final test, nothing adverse to the petitioners was found. The allocation of marks for the recruitment indicates that the main requirement of a constable is his physical proficiency and endurance. As already noted in the earlier part of the judgement, 100 marks were fixed for physical under different heads such as sit up, chinning up, cricket ball throw, distance running etc. and to qualify in the physical test, the candidates had to secure more than 50% marks. Admittedly, the petitioners secured more than 50% in the respective physical test.

124. The second requirement was mental aptitude which was tested in the written test which had a maximum of 50 marks only and bench mark to succeed was fixed at a meagre 33% only. All these petitioners also cleared the second requirement.

125. Interview carried only 20 marks without any qualifying mark, meaning thereby, that even if a candidate secures one ma