Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Shailendra Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
The State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. – 15450, 17760, 16988, 16636, 18085of 2024
Decided On : 16-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for appointment as assistant teacher on compassionate grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. identified issues regarding the legality of government orders. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments from petitioners and respondents regarding the validity of compassionate appointments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. constitutional provisions governing appointments to government services. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. general principles governing compassionate appointments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. case law supporting the rationale for compassionate appointments. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. judicial principles governing the limitations of compassionate appointments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. statutory framework governing compassionate appointments. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. interpretation of 'suitable employment' in the context of compassionate appointments. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. discussion on the impact of educational qualifications on compassionate appointments. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 11. importance of merit in the appointment process. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 12. interplay of constitutional law with compassionate appointments. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 13. discussion on the relevance of government orders and their constitutionality. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 14. constitutional and statutory obligations of the state regarding children's education. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. role of teachers in ensuring quality education. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 16. importance of quality education in constitutional law. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 17. challenges in achieving quality education. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 18. judicial emphasis on the importance of teacher quality. (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 19. judicial views on the need for qualified teachers. (Para 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 20. judicial interpretation on the need for competent teachers. (Para 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 21. constitutional obligations regarding teacher appointments. (Para 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 22. government orders and their impact on appointments. (Para 75 , 76 , 77) |
| 23. discussion on the conflict between compassionate appointments and quality education. (Para 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 24. critique of the existing appointment process. (Para 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 25. consequences of inadequate teacher quality. (Para 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 26. competing claims for education rights versus compassionate appointments. (Para 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 27. legal precedent on the balancing of rights. (Para 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 28. legal scrutiny of government orders against statutory rules. (Para 93 , 94 , 95) |
| 29. constitutional principles governing compassionate appointments. (Para 96 , 97 , 98) |
| 30. judicial caution against abuse of compassionate appointments. (Para 99 , 100 , 101) |
| 31. judicial perspective on backdoor entries in public employment. (Para 102 , 103 , 104) |
| 32. judicial warnings against over-liberal interpretations of compassionate appointments. (Para 105 , 106 , 107) |
| 33. relevance of past judgments to current issues. (Para 108 , 109 , 110) |
| 34. judicial acknowledgment of evolving legal standards. (Para 111 , 112 , 113) |
| 35. judicial authority to examine vires of government orders. (Para 114 , 115 , 116) |
| 36. judicial notice of constitutional obligations. (Para 117 , 118) |
| 37. court's final conclusions and directions regarding the case. (Para 119 , 120 , 121) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
| I | Introduction | |
| I(A) | Relief Sought | |
| I(B) | Issues arising for consideration | |
| II | Submissions from the Bar | |
| III | Constitution and Appointments to GovernmentPost/Services | |
| IV | Appointments on compassionate grounds | |
| IV(A) | General Principles | |
| IV(B) | Case Laws | |
| V | Statutory/Legal Framework | |
| V(A | Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules,1999 : Scope | |
| V(B) | Government Orders dated 04.09.2000& 15.02.2013 | |
| VI | Constitutional and Statutory Setting | |
| VI(A) | Children: Constitutional Rights, Dutyof State and Role of Courts | |
| VI(B) | Article 21A of the Constitution of India& the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education Act, 2009 | |
| VI(C) | Role of Teachers | |
| VI(D) | Teachers and | |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
