JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-The order dated October 7, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned by the writ petitioner by filing the present intra-Court appeal. On account of death of his father, who was a Government servant and expired during service on August 24, 2016, the petitioner-appellant, being eligible for Class-III post having qualifications prescribed therefore, was appointed as Junior Clerk vide order dated June 14, 2018. The appointment was in terms of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''1974 Rules''). In terms of the Rules and requirement for the post on which he was appointed on probation, the appellant was to clear the typing test with a speed of 25 words per minute within one year from the date of appointment. In case of failure, another chance was to be given. This fact is undisputed that the appellant appeared in the typing test twice, but failed. Considering the provisions of Rule 5 of 1974 Rules, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated June 15, 2020, which was challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed.

2. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in case the appellant was not able to pass the typing test and was not eligible to continue on Class-III post, he should have been offered a Class-IV post. The object of providing compassionate appointment in terms of 1974 Rules is to take care of financial crisis of the family where the bread earner dies while in service. His father died only in the year 2016. There is no other earning member in the family even now.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the services of the appellant were dispensed with strictly keeping in view the provisions of Rule-5 of 1974 Rules, which clearly provides that on failure to pass the typing test after giving two opportunities, the services of the employee, who was appointed on compassionate basis, will be dispensed with. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by learned Single Judge.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

5. The fact that father of the appellant was a Government servant and expired on August 24, 2016 is not in dispute. In terms of 1974 Rules, the appellant was offered the appointment on compassionate basis as Junior Clerk, a Class-III post. He was a Graduate and having C.C.C. certificate from DOEACC. In terms of the provisions applicable for Class-III post, a candidate is required to pass the typing test with speed of 25 words per minute. Rule 5 of 1974 Rules provides for concession to be given to the persons appointed on compassionate basis to enable them to pass the aforesaid typing test within one year and on failure, another chance is to be granted in the next year. The fact remains that the appellant failed to pass that test on account of which his services were dispensed with.

6. If we go strictly by the language of the Rules, it clearly provides that on failure to pass the typing test within the extended period, the services of the employee shall be dispensed with. However, the fact remains that it is a case in which the petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis on account of death of the bread earner in the family. If his services are dispensed with, the family may again suffer financial crisis. The provision of Rules have to be given a purposive meaning which has nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object is to provide support to the family of the deceased employee who dies during service. In case, service of an employee appointed on compassionate basis is dispensed with only because he had not been able to pass the typing test and if there are posts available in the lower category, his case should be examined for appointment to that category. It will not be a case of reversion of an employee from the post on which he was appointed,