The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'suitable appointment' in reference to the post held by the deceased employee, and the requirement for the petitioner to produce documents/certificates demonstrating knowledge of Urdu and Hindi/English typing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the High Court/respondents.

2. The prayer of this petition is as under :

(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Respondent no. 2 and letter no. 1378/I Agra dated 03.03.2022 written by the respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 1 and report dated 22.02.2022 submitted by the Committee headed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure 1,2& 3 to the Writ Petition).

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the appointment of the petitioner on any suitable class III post on the compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month or as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pay salary regularly every month to the petitioner.

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.05.2022 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month or as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. The order under challenge is the impugned order dated 16.8.2022 issued by the opposite party no. 2 (Annexure no. 1) offering an appointment to the petitioner on Class-IV post on compassionate ground on the recommendation report of opposite party no. 3 dated 22.2.2022 (Annexure no. 3). The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 3.3.2022 issued by the opposite party no. 2 addressing to the opposite party no. 1 seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner on Class III post. Precisely, the request of the petitioner for seeking appointment under Dying in Harness Rules was placed before the opposite party no 3 i.e. Consultative Committee at Agra which submitted its report on 22.2.2022 before the District Judge, Agra. The District Judge, Agra placed such report before this Court through Registrar General vide letter dated 3.3.2022 seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner on Class-IV post and thereafter the District Judge, Agra issued an offer of appointment to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.8.2022. Therefore, the foundation of impugned orders dated 3.3.2022 and 16.8.2022 is the report of the Committee dated 22.2.2022.

4. As per the impugned report dated 22.2.2022, though the petitioner has not produced 'CCC Certificate' but he is having qualification of B.C.A. (Bachelor of Computer Application), therefore, it may be presumed that he is having sufficient knowledge of computer application but the petitioner has not produced any document or certificate to show that he is having knowledge of Urdu and Hindi/English typing with the speed of 20/30 words per minute, therefore, his candidature may not be presumed to be sufficient for offering him appointment on Class-III post. Therefore, the petitioner has been offered an appointment on Class-IV post.

5. The precise facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner was serving on the post of 'Personal Assistant' in the office of opposite party no. 2 and after his demise the petitioner approached the competent authority to provide any suitable appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be appointed on Class-III post as he is having other requisite qualifications but he could not produce any document/certificate to show that he is having knowledge of Urdu and typing certificate showing his knowledge of Hindi/English typing with the speed of 20/30 words per minute so, such appointment has not been offered to him and he has been offered appointment on Class-IV post. Though the impugned report says that the petitioner has not produced any document relating to the knowledge of typing but such document has been filed with this petition which may be perused and considered by the opposite par