Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the unregistered association of those who have been appointed on compassionate ground in the Bihar State Electricity Board (Hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Petitioner Nos. 2 to 17 are the members of the said association. Their prayer is to direct the respondents to consider/reconsider their appointment on compassionate ground against Class III post as persons similarly situate have already been appointed on Class-Ill post with further prayer to reserve certain percentage of Class-Ill posts for being filled up from amongst those who have already been appointed on compassionate ground against Class-IV post. 3. With reference to the chart as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is submitted that all the petitioners except two, namely, petitioner nos. 2 and 10 were eligible for appointment on Class-Ill post on the date they were appointed on Class IV post on compassionate ground yet, for the reasons not known to the Petitioner they were appointed against Class-IV post. In this connection, it is submitted that the Board has been changing its policy of compassionate appointment from time to time. Under Standing Order No. 697 dated 30.12.1989, Annexure-2 the Board took a policy decision to grant compassionate appointment to those whose bread winner serving the Board died in harness. The Circular specifically provided that the appointment on compassionate ground could be made either against Class IV/III post keeping in view the status/qualification of the appointee and the requirement/necessity of the Board to fill up the Class lll/IV post. The said policy for appointment on compassionate ground prevailing in the Board was revised under Standing Order No. 748 dated 18.3.1993, Annexure-5 which specifically provided that the appointment on compassionate ground even in pending cases shall be made only against Class-IV post and if Class IV post is not available, then the person concerned will be engaged on daily wages and on the availability of Class IV vacancy, he shall be appointed against Class IV post. Policy for appointment on compassionate ground was again revised under Standing Order No. 756 dated 18.2.1994, Annexure-6 which provided that those who were graduate and above shall be considered for appointment on Class-Ill post and others shall be considered for compassionate appointment against Class-IV post which policy is holding the field till date with only modification under Standing Order No. 840 dated 19.4.2002, Annexure-9 and 841 dated 28.5.2002, Annexure-10 that a graduate and above can also be considered for appointment on compassionate ground against Class-IV post, if Class-Ill post is not available. 4. It appears from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the petitioners on the relevant date were eligible for appointment on Class III post but were appointed on compassionate ground on Class-IV post may be on account of lack of availability of Ciass-lll vacancy or on account of the ban imposed against appointment being made on Class-Ill post have filed this writ petition to direct the Board to reconsider their appointment on compassionate ground as the Board itself had taken a policy decision under Standing Order Nos. 840 and 841, dated 19.4.2002 and 28.5.2002, Annexures 9 and 10 respectively to consider the graduate and above for appointment on compassionate ground against Class-Ill post. In this connection, the petitioners rely on Standing Order No. 859 dated 26.11.2005, Annexure-18 which was placed on the records of this case with a supplementary affidavit as the same was issued during the pendency of this writ petition perusal whereof indicates that thereunder Board itself has agreed to reconsider the cases of those who could not be appointed on compassionate ground on Class-Ill post in terms of Standing Order Nos. 840 and 841, dated 19.4.2002 and 28.5.2002, Annexures- 9 and 10 respectively on account of lack of vacancy or on account of not having attained the minimum age for such appointment and were offered Class-IV appointment but did not choose to accept the same and the offer remained pending. Placing reliance on the said circular, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for direction to the Board to reconsider their cases as well for compassionate appointment against Class-Ill post as they could also not be appointed on compassionate ground against Class-Ill post on account of lack of Class-Ill vacancy being available. 5. Having perused the standing order no. Placing reliance on the said circular, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for direction to the Board to reconsider their cases as well for compassionate appointment against Class-Ill post as they could also not be appointed on compassionate ground against Class-Ill post on account of lack of Class-Ill vacancy being available. 5. Having perused the standing order no. 859 dated 26.11.2005, Annexure-18, it appears the resolve of the Board to reconsider the cases of those who were offered compassionate appointment on Class-IV post but did not choose to accept the same and the offer remained pending may not withstand the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it is well settled in a catena of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court that compassionate appointment should be provided to the family in distress as early as possible and if post is not available by creating supernumerary post so that the family is able to tide over the unforeseen circumstances created on account of the death of the bread winner. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Sushma Gosain V/s. Union of India, reported in (1989)4 SCC 468 . I called upon the Standing Counsel appearing for the Board to address the Court on the legality and the validity of the aforesaid standing order. 6. Learned counsel supported the resolve made under the standing order and submitted that the reconsideration is confined to only those who have not accepted the offer of appointment on compassionate ground on Class-IV post and five years have not passed from the date of death of the bread winner. According to learned counsel, if the period of five years from the date of death of the bread winner is allowed to apply for compassionate appointment then during the said period of five years the candidate should also have the opportunity to keep the offer pending and appreciating the same the Board has taken the resolve to reconsider the cases of those whose offer is pending. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 1994(4) SCC 138 to submit that compassionate employment should be granted within a reasonable period as provided in the Rules from the date of death of the bread winner and according to learned counsel, the reasonable period in terms of the circulars of the Board is five years and during the five year, if any offer for compassionate appointment is kept pending, then the authorities of the Board are always at liberty to reconsider the same and the resolve made under Standing Order No. 859 dated 26.11.2005, Annexure-18 is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. 7. I regret my inability to accept the aforesaid submission of learned counsel. Once the Board offered compassionate appointment may be on a Class-IV post and the candidate did not choose to accept the same, he lost his right for appointment/ reconsideration as failure to accept the offer of compassionate appointment on Class-IV post is a circumstance which clearly indicate that the family which has lost its bread winner has other avenues of survival and does not require any compassion. Person in distress will accept any appointment whatever is coming to him no sooner it is offered. If one chooses to keep the offer pending until Class-Ill post is offered by way of compassionate appointment, then it is obvious that family is not in distress requiring any immediate financial support or succour and is only awaiting a suitable post commensurate to his status which is neither the scope nor the purpose behind providing compassionate appointment. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. V/s. Ashwini Kr. Tanga, (2004)7 SCC 265 , whereunder the direction of the High Court to consider appointment on compassionate ground was set aside by the Apex Court hoiding that appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception taking into consideration the death of an employee whiie in service leaving the family without any means of livelihood. Tanga, (2004)7 SCC 265 , whereunder the direction of the High Court to consider appointment on compassionate ground was set aside by the Apex Court hoiding that appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception taking into consideration the death of an employee whiie in service leaving the family without any means of livelihood. Ward of an employee who is without any means of livelihood will certainly accept offer of Class-IV appointment and shall not wait for being provided Class-Ill appointment. The fact that the circular has been issued to reconsider the cases of those who have not accepted the offer of Class-IV appointment itself makes it violative of Articles 14 and 16 as thereunder process of compassionate appointment is being resorted to as a source of appointment which is beyond the scope and concept of compassionate appointment. In the circumstances, this Court holds that the contents of the Standing Order No. 859 dated 26.11.2005, Annexure-18 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the discussions above there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. No cost.