The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Hari Shankar seeking reconsideration of his claim for compassionate appointment, holding that he had “miserably failed to mislead” the Court after repeatedly suppressing material facts across multiple rounds of litigation. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, noting he was “not a bonafide litigant.”
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery delivered the judgment in Writ-A No. 857 of 2024, observing that the petitioner’s original application for compassionate appointment was rejected on July 25, 2011, and that order was never challenged. However, in subsequent petitions, the petitioner concealed this rejection and continued to seek relief.
Background of the Case
Hari Shankar had applied for a job on compassionate grounds following the death of his father in harness on February 22, 2007. His application was rejected by the competent authority on July 25, 2011. He did not challenge this rejection.
Instead, he filed Writ Petition No. 26052 of 2016, claiming that his application had not been considered. Not disclosing the earlier rejection, he secured an observation from the Court for reconsideration of his claim.
On reconsideration, the competent authority reiterated on January 6, 2017, that the claim could not be reopened since it had already been rejected in 2011.
Yet again, the petitioner approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 2017, challenging the 2017 order. This time too, he failed to challenge the original 2011 rejection and instead made submissions suggesting that similarly situated claims were being reconsidered.
The Court noted that this submission was “contrary to record,” as the question of reconsideration had already been rejected. Despite this, the authorities again examined the matter and rejected the request afresh.
Finally, the petitioner challenged the rejection order dated July 12, 2023, still without ever questioning the foundational 2011 rejection.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Shamshery held that the petitioner had misused the judicial process and misled the Court by withholding the crucial fact that his claim was rejected in 2011.
The Court observed:
“By misleading in earlier two rounds, this Court has granted opportunity for reconsideration, however, petitioner is now miserably failed to mislead… Since claim of petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2011 while remained unchallenged, therefore, prayer to open the case is unjustified.”
The Court found that there was no merit in the writ petition and declared the petitioner to be not a genuine litigant.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The Court directed that ₹25,000 be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Bulandshahr.
“Accordingly writ petition is dismissed and since petitioner is not a bonafide litigant, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25000/-,” the Court concluded.
