HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1393 of 2006 (S/S) Prakash Chandra Pandey S/o late Sri Keshav Dutt Pandey … Petitioner Versus Municipal Board and another … Respondents Dated:- 05th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mrs. Indu Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claims appointment on the post of Tax Clerk under the Dying in Harness Rules. This Court finds that the petitioner has already been appointed as Tax Collector on 18.02.2000 under the Dying in Harness Rules, which has been accepted by the petitioner without any protest. In my opinion, once an appointment is made under the Dying in Harness Rules, the matter comes to an end and the petitioner cannot turn around and contend that he was liable to be appointed on a higher post, especially when the offer of appointment was accepted by the petitioner without any protest. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh 1994 (6) SCC 560 held that once an appointment has been made under the Dying in Harness Rule and has been accepted without any protest, the same cannot be reconsidered on the ground that the candidate was eligible for an appointment on a different post or on a higher post. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in I.G. (Karmik) & others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi 2007 (6) SCC 162. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 05.05.2010 LSR 2