Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Back door entry in Government service stands in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is well-settled that any appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 read with relevant Service Rules is void. Legitimacy cannot be conferred on the appointments which are made in derogation of rule of law.

2. Appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is an exception to the normal mode of appointment made as per procedure prescribed in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Although right to appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules is not an absolute right yet each case has to be processed and considered within the narrow ambit of prevalent rules so as to tide over the financial conditions of a family under indigent circumstances. The law on this subject for the purposes of providing employment is now well-settled.

3. The present case is a unique instance of breach of law in the matter of recruitment to public services. The facts of the case are peculiar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 through the process of direct recruitment and he was posted at Agra in the year 1995 on the post of police constable (male). The petitioner proceeds to state that he had worked sincerely and devotedly on the post of Constable (M) and has been posted at number of places from the year 1995 upto the date of passing of the impugned order, whereby he has been dismissed from service.

4. The occasion to dismiss the petitioner from service arose, when this Court as back as on 21.4.2006 passed an order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11505 of 2006, which was in the sequal of orders passed earlier on 24.2.2006 and 10.3.2006. For the purposes of present controversy, the order passed by this Court on 21.4.2006 is relevant and is reproduced below.

“Shri Ravi Janjan Standing Counsel is present on behalf of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Headquarter, Allahabad.

Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents may be taken on record.

On Instructions, it is stated on behalf of respondent No. 3 that in the western district of the State of U.P. Fraudulent compassionate appointments have been obtained in the police department by following four categories of person:

a. Father/Mother of the employee appointed as dependent, who were never in the employment of the Police Department of the State of U.P.

b. More than one dependant has been appointed on compassionate basis, where a police officer had expired during harness.

c. Father/Mother of the dependant are still alive yet compassionate appointments have been offered.

d. Forged documentary certificates have been produced for the purposes of obtaining appointment on the respective posts.

It has further been stated that 22 such cases have already been detected and the number of such fraudulent appointments may run in hundreds. Enquiry into individual case may take years.

In the opinion of the Court fraudulent appointments cannot be permitted to continue even for a single day and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to issue following directions at this stage of the proceedings.

1. Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police/Commandant of PAC and other Drawing and officers of the various police branches shall require all compassionate appointees, by an order in writing to furnish the following details:

a. Name of the father/mother of the employee said to have expired during harness including the designation and the last post held by them in the police department with such identification numbers as may be necessary.

b. The date of death of the employee of the police department including the statement as to whether he has expired during harness or not alongwith documen