The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, particularly Regulations 101 to 107, in determining the seniority of compassionate appointees and the authority of administrative bodies to review their own orders in case of misrepresentation of facts or fraud.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ -A No. 16471 of 2008 whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.6 herein was appointed on compassionate ground on 17.04.1996 as an Assistant Clerk in the institution and since then he is continuing in the said institution, whereas appellant was appointed on 27.11.1992 on compassionate ground as Assistant Clerk against a supernumerary post as per the then existing regulations, which provided for class-III appointments on a supernumerary post as well.

4. Admittedly, the appellant was granted appointment on a supernumerary post in the institution, namely, Janta Inter College, Nauhjheel, Mathura, in pursuance to which he reported for joining on 01.01.1993. Later on he was adjusted/absorbed against a regular vacancy in the respondent's institution, namely, Rastriya Inter College, Raya on 30th September, 2000. The seniority came to be determined by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 02.02.2008 and the respondent no.6 was held senior to the appellant on the ground that his substantive appointment in the cadre was earlier in point of time.

5. Vide order dated 02.02.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the earlier services rendered by the appellant against the supernumerary post has been excluded and the seniority has been counted only from the date of his appointment against regular and substantive post i.e. on 30.09.2000. The District Inspector of Schools again passed the order dated 20.03.2008, by which cancelled its earlier order dated 02.02.2008 and then granted his approval to the promotion of the appellant as head clerk vide its order dated 30.04.2008.

6. Against the order dated 30.04.2008 the respondent no.6 filed Writ – A No. 16471 of 2008 on the ground that order dated 20.03.2008 passed by District Inspector of Schools was an ex-parte order and has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.6 and therefore, the same is bad, arbitrary and illegal.

7. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.05.2018 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by District Inspector of Schools and remitted the matter to the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura to decide the matter a fresh in the light of the observations and directions made in the order, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified cop[y of the order.

8. Aggrieved by order dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Special Appeal has been filed on the ground that impugned judgment and order was passed without considering the provisions of Regulations 101 to 107 of the Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which clearly emphasis absorption of compassionate appointee against supernumerary post against substantively vacant post first in point of time before granting any further compassionate appointment.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that consequently such compassionate appointment against a substantively vacant post granted to the respondent no.6 on 17.04.1996 without having firstly absorbed the appellant against a substantively post in the district was illegal and contrary to the statutory regulations governing such compassionate appointment.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the compassionate appointment is a permanent appointment, inheriting all benefits of service including seniority and there existing no rational for taking a contrary view. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has fa