The court reiterated that compassionate appointments cannot be granted where previous court orders have deemed related government policies unlawful, asserting the principle against perpetuating illegalities.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. The order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur/respondent No.4 by which the claim of the petitioners for grant of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground has been rejected is under challenge.

3. Facts and brief as contained in the writ petition are that Shiv Kant Pal who is father of the petitioner No.1/Aditya Kumar had been died on 26.04.2021 while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Uchch Prathmik Vidyalay Khairha Development Block Haswa, District Fatehpur and Indrajeet Singh, who is father of petitioner No.2/Yogendra Singh were had been died on 28.04.2021 while working on the post of Head Master of Prathmik Vidyalay Gadhi Development Block Asthar District Fatehpur. Since the petitioners are having requisite qualification, they submitted applications for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, The aforesaid applications have been rejected pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ A No.15450 of 2024 ( Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others ). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed Writ A No.15439 of 2025 ( Aditya Kumar And Another Vs. Sttate of U.P. and others ). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 permitting the petitioner to submit an application physically to the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur within a period of one week and District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur had directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order physically, and not through the online portal within a period of three weeks, copy of the aforesaid judgement is appended as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur has passed the order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the judgement and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions being leading number Writ A No.15450 of 2024 ( Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others ). Hence the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that in the judgement and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra), it is clearly held by this Court that no compassionate appointment could be granted on the post of Assistant Teachers. The direction given by this Court in the aforesaid order reads as follows:-

IX. Conclusions and Directions:

119. In the wake of preceding discussion, the following conclusions are being recorded and corresponding directions are being issued to the State Authorities:

(A). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are held to be ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of India.

(B). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are violative of Section 3 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 which vests the right of free and compulsory education in children.

(C). The Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds are in conflict with the mandate of Rule 5 of the