Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—The petitioners in all the companion writ petitions are the sons/kin of deceased fair price dealers of different village panchayats. They have made claims for appointment as fair price shop dealers’ on compassionate grounds.

2. The appointment of fair price shop dealers on compassionate grounds are governed and regulated by the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. Clause 10( > ) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, prescribes the criteria for appointments of fair price shop dealers on compassionate grounds.

3. The petitioners in their respective writ petitions have assailed the Clause 10( > ) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002.

4. The common question of law raised in WRIT - C No. - 16948 of 2018 (Sumpurnanand v. State of U.P. and others) and companion writ petitions, Writ C No. 16950 of 2018 (Manoj Yadav v. State of U.P. and another) and Writ C No. 17169 of 2018 (Afan Ahamad v. State of U.P. and others), is the challenge laid out to the clause 10( > ) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 only insofar as it makes the good reputation of the deceased fair price shop dealer the precondition for appointment of his kin as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds.

5. The writ petitions have been connected and are being decided by a common judgment.

6. Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the precondition in the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 of good reputation of a deceased dealer as a sole basis for appointment of his kin as fair price dealer on compassionate ground is arbitrary and illegal. The criteria has no nexus with the object of making appointment on compassionate grounds. The provision makes the good name of the deceased dealer vulnerable to slander. The provision is violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has relied upon on a number of judgments to fortify his submissions. Sri Durga Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No. 16950 of 2018 (Manoj Yadav v. State of U.P. and another) and Sri Ajay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No. 17169 of 2018 (Afan Ahamad v. State of U.P. and others) have adopted the arguments of Shri Brij Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No. - 16948 of 2018 (Sumpurnanand v. State of U.P. and others).

7. Shri Siddharth Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Shri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State, he defended the criteria for appointing fair price shop dealers on compassionate grounds. He submits that making the criteria for appointment is a policy decision of the State. The jurisdiction of Courts in such matters is limited and the scope of judicial intervention is restricted.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. The offending portion of Government Order dated 17.8.2002 which is assailed in all the writ petitions is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference and is highlighted for sake of clarity:

Þ10- ¼>½ ;fn nqdkunkj vPNh [;kfr dk gks rks mldh e`R;q ds mijkar nqdku dk vkoaVu mlds vkfJr dks djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkfJr dk rkRi;Z iRuh] iq= rFkk vfookfgr iq=h ls gSAÞ

10. The English translation of the word Þ[;kfrÞ occurring in the paragraph 10( > ) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, is “ reputation” (as defined in the Universal’s Law Dictionary by Dansingh Suganchand Choudhary and Prof. Praveen Kumar Dansingh Choudhary). Further, the said translation of ÞvPNh [;kfrÞ in para 10( > ) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, as “good reputation” has also been approved by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meera Pandey v. State of U.P., 2013(2) ADJ 110. This Court interpreted the provision as under :

“We are thus of the view that appointment under paragraph 10 ( > ) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 would not be covered by the Rule of reservation as it is a special appointment on compassionate ground and only condition whic