Point of Law : As more than 30 years have passed since the father of the petitioner/appellant had expired, neither there is any useful purpose to issue any positive direction, nor the facts of the case warrants it.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anurag Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant/petitioner is the son of the deceased, namely, Gyan Chand Upadhay, who was working as Assistant Teacher, and has died on 07.07.1991. According to the petitioner/appellant, he was about 8 years old at the time of death of his father. His mother, namely, Shashi Kala, made an application on 23.07.1992 before the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which was followed by a representation dated 14.10.1991 and reminders dated 23.09.1993, 17.07.1994 and 07.11.1995, but the appointment was not granted. The petitioner/appellant passed his Intermediate Examination in the year 2001 and thereafter did graduation from Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Thereafter, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71340 of 2007, which was finally disposed of by order dated 09.02.2007 providing that the petitioner/appellant may file representation before the respondent no.1 ventilating all his grievances.

3. According to the petitioner/appellant, the respondent no.1 in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 71340 of 2007, was the State of U.P. However, the petitioner/appellant instead of filing representation before the State Government, moved an application for compassionate appointment before the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, who granted appointment vide order dated 31.03.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner/appellant filed an application for compassionate appointment after about 9 years of death of his father, but neither relaxation was sought from the State Government nor any representation was filed by him before the State Government pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.02.2007 nor delay in filing the application was condoned. Therefore, show cause notice dated 05.03.2012 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur to the petitioner/appellant requiring him to show cause as to why his appointment may not be cancelled on the ground that petitioner/appellant obtained compassionate appointment by concealment of facts and misrepresentation. However, the petitioner/appellant had not submitted any reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Consequently, the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur passed an order dated 14.04.2012 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner/appellant as untrained assistant teacher. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner/appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39344 of 2012 (Narendra Kumar Upadhaya Versus State of U.P. and others), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2012, observing as under :-

(i) The said order is in uttar violation of the order passed by this Court, as in the absence of order passed by the State Government, according relaxation, the District Basic Education Officer, could not have entertained the said application, and accorded compassionate appointment. District Basic Education Officer, had no authority whatsoever to accord compassionate appointment, the order offering compassionate appointment was void/illegal.

(ii) Thereafter District Basic Education Officer, has acquired knowledge of fact that date of death of father of the petitioner is 07.07.1991 and by misrepresenting the then District Basic Education Officer, Dhirendra Nath Singh offered appointment to the petitioner after 19 years and same was totally illegal and in contravention of Government Order.

(iii) Fact of the matter is that this Court has given categorical direction that matter be considered and decided by the State Government and accepted position is that there is no decision of the State Government.

(iv) In the facts of the case District Basic Education Officer, has rig