IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1408 of 2004 Smt. Sushila Thapliyal ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) This writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution on 20.8.2011. Now a restoration application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant for recalling the order dated 20.8.2011. The grounds urged in the restoration application seem to be bona fide. Restoration Application (MCC No. 690 of 2011) stands allowed. Order dated 20.8.2011 is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. Writ petition is now being heard finally. Heard Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. The husband of the petitioner was an instructor in a Government Industrial Training Institute at Karanprayag, District Chamoli. He died while in harness on 10.5.2004. The petitioner who was working as a part-time “Prashikshan Mitra” on an honorarium in the same institute was granted appointment as an instructor in the said college by the order of the Director, Directorate of Training and Employment, Uttarakhand, Haldwani, District Nainital dated 13.10.2004. This order was conditional subject to the verifications of the petitioner’s 2 documents including the certificates, etc. Thereafter it was discovered that one of the important certificates of the petitioner on the basis of which this appointment was made was “Shiksha Visharad” from “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan”, Allahabad. According to the petitioner, “Shiksha Visharad” was equivalent to B.Ed. degree. All the same, “Shiksha Visharad” has not been granted equivalence to B.Ed. by the Government of Uttarakhand. A Division Bench of this Court in Shailendra Singh and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2007 (1) U.D., 155 has also held that “Shiksha Visharad” is not equivalent to B.Ed. Therefore in view of this Court the appointment of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. The contention of the petitioner is that appointment on compassionate ground is a permanent appointment and her services were not liable to be dispensed with in the manner they have been done. This contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the appointment of the petitioner was conditional subject to certain verification of the documents. On verification it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for the appointment as Instructor as she did not possess one of the essential qualifications, as already referred above, and as such her appointment was cancelled. There seems to be no anomaly here. There is another aspect of the matter which is that appointment on compassionate grounds are made so that a family who has been deprived of its only earning member is able to meet the immediate hardship which has befallen upon the family due to death of its only bread-winner. In this case, this contingency has been taken care of inasmuch as in this case, the petitioner 3 immediately thereafter was granted appointment in the same institute on the post of Clerk which the petitioner has accepted, though under protest. Writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 12.10.2011 Avneet