Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1004 (PAT)

Bharti v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-21

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of teacher in the light of the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 5.8.2002. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners mother was an Assistant Teacher in Triveni Lal Middle School, Begusarai and while in service she died on 13.11.2001 leaving behind two daughters; namely the petitioner and Priyanka Kumari. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and by letter dated 12.1.2002 (Annexure-2) the Headmaster of the School, where the mother of the petitioner was working, forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Area Education Officer. It seems that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 5.8.2002 and it recommended for appointment of the petitioner to the post of teacher, a class III post. However, when petitioner was not given appointment letter in pursuance of the decision of the District Compassionate Committee, she filed the present application on 24.3.2004. It is the assertion of the petitioner that she got married on 25.10.2002. 3. Respondents in its counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner married on 9.3.2002 and on the date when the District Compassionate Committee considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, said fact was suppressed and as such the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 31.8.2004 rescinded the resolution of the District Compassionate Committee held on 5.8.2002. While doing so it relied on the plea of one Ramanand Singh maternal uncle of the petitioner, who in his application had stated that the petitioner was married on 9.3.2002. Accordingly the plea of the respondents is that on the date when the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by District Compassionate Committee on 5.8.2002 she was married and as such not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. There is a controversy in regard to the date on which the petitioner was married. According to the petitioner she was married on 25.10.2002 whereas according to respondents she was married on 9.3.2002. Undisputedly, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the District Compassionate Committee on 5.8.2002. 4. There is a controversy in regard to the date on which the petitioner was married. According to the petitioner she was married on 25.10.2002 whereas according to respondents she was married on 9.3.2002. Undisputedly, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the District Compassionate Committee on 5.8.2002. Respondents although in the counter affidavit have placed on record the resolution of the District Compassionate Committee dated 31.8.2004 in which the maternal uncle of the petitioner is alleged to have stated that she was married on 9.3.2002 but no document has been placed on record to substantiate the same. Petitioner in fact had filed a certificate granted by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat showing that she was married on 25.10.2002. Petitioner has also placed on record the receipt dated 25.10.2002 (annexure-10) showing receipt of a sum of Rs. 251/- which according to the petitioner was paid to the temple on the date of marriage. In the face of aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the petitioners case that she was married on 25.10.2002. 5. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that on the date the District Compassionate Committee considered the case of the petitioner i.e. 5.8.2002, petitioner was unmarried and therefore she was rightly recommended for appointment on compassionate ground and her marriage subsequently on 25.10.2002 shall not deprive her the right to be appointed on compassionate ground. 6. J.C. to S.C. I, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that after the petitioner was married her relationship from her mothers family severed and the whole purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground shall not be served by giving appointment to the petitioner. He points out that the object of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide succour to the family of the bread earner. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mahto. The date on which the District Compassionate Committee considered the case of the petitioner, she was unmarried. In my opinion, her marriage later on shall not deprive her the right of appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mahto. The date on which the District Compassionate Committee considered the case of the petitioner, she was unmarried. In my opinion, her marriage later on shall not deprive her the right of appointment on compassionate ground. The anxiety of the respondents to provide succour to another dependant of the deceased can be very well served by putting a condition in the order of the appointment that she will have to look after the other dependant of the deceased employee and in case of her failure, the order of appointment may be rescinded. As the petitioner is sought to be denied the appointment only on the ground that she had married being unsustainable in the eye of law, the respondents shall consider to issue letter of appointment bearing in mind the observation aforesaid within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus issue directing the respondents to consider issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.