Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 752 (PAT)

Mahabir Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-27

R.S.GARG

body2004
Judgment 1. This order shall dispose of C.W.J.C. No. 6668/2003 (Mahabir Paswan V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 7044/2003 (Jay Prakash Choudhary V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.). 2. The facts in the matter of Mahabir Paswan are that his father Basudeo Paswan, who was working as an Assistant Teacher at Middle School, Tajnipur died on 17.6.2001 and thereafter the petitioner made an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. His application has been refected on the ground that one of the wards/successors of the deceased i.e. petitioners brother, Kamlesh Paswan was posted as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Giriyak. In the matter of Jay Prakash Choudhary, the facts are that petitioners father died on 22.2.2002 and the petitioner made an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. His application was also rejected on the ground that his elder brother i.e. the elder son of the deceased was gainfully employed in a Government job. 3. Learned counsel for each of the petitioner submitted that the respondents should not reject the applications straightway but were obliged to make enquiries that whether the person gainfully employed was looking after the family or not, was providing any assistance to the family or not, and whether he was living jointly or separately. 4. Referring to a Circular of 1999, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that unless an enquiry into these facts is made and a positive finding is recorded, the applications could not be rejected simply on the ground that one of the successors of the deceased was gainfully employed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if one of the successors of the deceased is gainfully employed then in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Vishal Kumar V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2004(2) PLJR 453 ], there is no obligation upon the State Govt, to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment. 5. To counter the said argument, learned counsel for the parties submits that learned Single Judge in the matter of Kaushalendra Kumar V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2004(2) PLJR 453 ], there is no obligation upon the State Govt, to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment. 5. To counter the said argument, learned counsel for the parties submits that learned Single Judge in the matter of Kaushalendra Kumar V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 11487 of 2002, decided on 14.2.2003) observed that the appointment could not be refused on this simple ground without making an enquiry into the allegations of the petitioners and recording a finding that whether the persons so gainfully employed were maintaining the family or not. It is also submitted that the matter of Kaushlendra Kumar, in light of the said directions issued by this Court was reconsidered and the District Compassionate Appointment Committee made recommendations in his favour. 6. Reliance is also placed upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Bharat Prasad V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. [1998 (1) PLJR 125]. 7. In the matter of Vishal Kumar (supra), the Division Bench has taken into consideration the case of Bharat Prasad (supra) and observed that while deciding the said case though the learned Judge clearly mentioned that he was not deciding the validity of any guideline and merely permitting filing of a representation. The Division Bench observed that the case does not apply to the circumstances of the case under consideration. 8. In the matter of Vishal Kumar (supra), this Court after taking into consideration the argument that the employed brother and the father were living separately and evidence was offered to that effect, the said petitioner was entitled to an appointment, observed "the Court is afraid, this logic of law will not apply if there will be rivalry within the family as in the present case between the father and the son or between siblings; a job can be offered on the principle of compassionate ground only to one person and when one is gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment". The above referred observations of the Division Bench certainly strike at the very root of the petitioners rights. In each of the case, one of the son of the deceased is gainfully employed in the Government job. The above referred observations of the Division Bench certainly strike at the very root of the petitioners rights. In each of the case, one of the son of the deceased is gainfully employed in the Government job. If one son is already employed and the Division Bench says that there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment then the petitioners certainly would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The petitions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary so that the same is circulated in different Departments so that no heart-burn is caused to anybody that in a given case one has been appointed though his relation was gainfully employed.