JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. Ram Janam Paswan, the appellant herein, was appointed as Chowkidar on compassionate ground by the order dated 26.7.2003 as he was the son of the deceased employee-Chowkidar. Later the same was cancelled and the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, step brother of; the petitioner-appellant, was appointed in that post by the order dated 16.8.2005. The said order appointing respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, and cancelling the appellants, Ram Janam Paswans appointment, has been challenged by the petitioner-appellant before this Court in W.P (S) No. 6664/2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 23.3.2006. Hence, this L.P.A. 2. The short facts, which are required for disposal of this appeal, are as follows: The petitioner-appellant is the son of late Banarasi Dusadh, who was working as Chowkidar in Nagar Untari Police Station. He died in harness on 11.4.1994. Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4, claiming that he is the son of the first wife of the deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment on 10.5.1994. In the meantime, the petitioner-appellant also claiming himself to be the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, filed application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Compassionate Committee by the order dated 25.9.1997, held that the petitioner-appellant is entitled to be appointed as Chowkidar on compassionate ground and Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4, the step brother of the petitioner-appellant, would be entitled to monetary benefits accrued on account of the death of the deceased employee on the basis of the concession given by petitioner that he has no objection for the same. Aggrieved by that, the said Krishna Ram (respondent No. 4) challenged the same in CWJC No. 3437/1997R, claiming that he alone is entitled for the appointment as he is the legitimate child of the first wife of the deceased employee. After hearing the counsel for both parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition (CWJC No. 3437/1997R) by the order dated 10.5.1999, holding that the order passed by the District Compassionate Committee is not valid as the order was passed merely on the basis of concession given by the Ram Janam Paswan and the claim of the respondent No. 4 that he is entitled to the appointment as he is the legitimate son of the deceased employee has not at all been considered. The learned Single Judge further remanded the matter directing the District Compassionate Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 filed several representations to the Committee to decide the matter as directed by the High Court; but there was no response. Since no action was taken, contempt application had been filed by him. During the pendency of the contempt matter, the authorities passed the order on 16.8.2005 appointing the respondent No. 4 and cancelling the appointment given to the petitioner appellant. Challenging the same, the petitioner-appellant filed writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 6664/2005. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 23.3.2006 mainly on the ground that the order impugned passed by the authority on 16.8.2005 was under the direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition in CWJC No. 3437/1997R and as the said order passed by the Single Judge has not been challenged by the petitioner-appellant and has attained finality, the validity of the order passed in CWJC No. 3437/1997R cannot be questioned. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, this L.P.A has been filed. 3. Mr. R.K. Katariya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant, would make the following contentions, assailing the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6664/2005 : (A) After the death of the appellants farther in harness, the whole family consisting of widow mother, the appellant and other members of the family were living in hardship. To tide over the crisis of the family, the petitioner was allowed to work as Chowkidar on the vacancy caused by the death of his father. The District Compassionate Committee in a meeting held on 25.9.1997 recommended the appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground as he has fulfilled all the criteria laid down by the State Government. Again when a special meeting of the District Compassionate Committee was held on 18.7.2003, appellants case was recommended for appointment as Chowkidar on compassionate ground. (B) In the meantime, respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, filed writ petition, CWJC No. 3437/1997R, challenging the order of appointment made in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 10.5.1999 remitting the matter for fresh decision taking into consideration the eligibility and not on the basis of concession. (B) In the meantime, respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, filed writ petition, CWJC No. 3437/1997R, challenging the order of appointment made in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 10.5.1999 remitting the matter for fresh decision taking into consideration the eligibility and not on the basis of concession. The respondent No. 4 filed contempt application for non-compliance of the order dated 10.5.1999. The District Compassionate Committee hurriedly held the meeting on 16.8.2005 and cancelled the appointment of the appellant arbitrarily and gave appointment to respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, even though the said Krishna Ram was arrested for serious allegation in a case registered under Section 307 I.P.C and was sent to judicial custody from 15.5.2005 onwards. (C) The order dated 16.8.2005 cancelling the appointment of the appellant and ordering the appointment of respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, as Chowkidar, did not take into consideration the eligibility criteria, the pendency of the criminal case and bad antecedent of respondent No. 4, Krishana Ram. (D) The order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R is also per incurium as it has not taken into consideration the various decisions of the Supreme Court and other judgments of High Courts with regard to eligibility criteria. Therefore, the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the authority concurred is liable to be cancelled and the order of appointment issued in his favour has to be restored. 4. The gist of the reply made by the counsel for the respondent No. 4 is as follows: (I) Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4, is admittedly the only son of the first wife of the deceased employee. The will executed by the father of respondent No. 4 also indicates that the deceased employee father had stated therein that the respondent No. 4 is the sole successor of all the properties and other things belonged to him. The District Compassionate Committee, ignoring the rightful claim of the respondent No. 4, came to the conclusion that the petitioner- appellant is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, is entitled to the monetary benefits accrued to the credit of the deceased employee. The District Compassionate Committee, ignoring the rightful claim of the respondent No. 4, came to the conclusion that the petitioner- appellant is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, is entitled to the monetary benefits accrued to the credit of the deceased employee. (II) The respondent No. 4 challenged the decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee in CWJC No. 3437/1997R and ultimately, Honble Single Judge, in the said writ petition, set aside the decision dated 25.9.1997 of the Committee as the same is merely based upon the concession given by the appellant and not on the basis of eligibility criteria land remitted the matter for fresh decision. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, made representations to the Police Authorities and there was no response upto 2003. Therefore, he was constrained to file contempt in Cont. (C) Case No. 424/2063 for non-compliance of the order dated 10.5.1999 passed in CWJC No. 3437/1999R. During the pendency of contempt application, the order has been passed on 16.8.2005 by the authorities appointing respondent No. 4 and canceling the appointment of the appellant. In pursuance of the said order, the contempt proceeding was dropped. (III) Since the order dated 16.8.2005 appointing respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, on compassionate ground is in compliance of the order dated 10.51999 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1999R and the said order has not been challenged before the appropriate forum by the appellant, it (order dated 10.5.1999) has attained finality. Therefore, the decision taken by the competent authority for appointment of the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, in pursuance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal arid therefore, the learned Single Judge is correct in affirming the order dated 16.8.2005 and in dismissing the writ petition. (IV) The criminal case filed against respondent No. 4 was a false case and it was falsely lodged against respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the vested interest in order to prevent the respondent No. 4 from getting the appointment on compassionate ground. 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. 6. 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the decision taken by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R is not correct as it has not considered the various judgments of the Supreme Court relating to eligibility criteria in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground and as such, the said order, which is per incurium, should not have been acted upon by the authorities and therefore, the order dated 16.8.2005 appointing respondent No. 4 is not valid. 7. On the other hand, it is contended by the counsel for the respondents that since the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R has not been challenged before the appropriate forum, the said order has attained finality and it is binding on the authorities and as such, the order appointing the respondent No. 4 which was passed as per the direction of this Court is justified. 8. At the outset, it shall be mentioned that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier writ petition in CWJC No. 3437/1997R is wrong as it has not considered the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and so it is per incurium, cannot be accepted, as the appellant had not chosen to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and on the other hand, he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the competent authority by filing representation praying that his case may be favourably considered in pursuance of the order passed in CWJC No. 3437/1997R remitting the matter to the authority concerned for taking a fresh decision. Therefore, the validity of the order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition in CWJC No. 3437/1997R, which has been acted upon by him, cannot be questioned by the petitioner himself. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to reject the said submission advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. However, one other important aspect has to be noticed in this case. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to reject the said submission advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. However, one other important aspect has to be noticed in this case. It is the specific plea made by the counsel for respondent No. 4 that the order canceling the appointment of the appellant and appointing the respondent No. 4 on compassionate ground was passed by the authority purely on the basis of the directions given by this Court in CWJC No. 3437/1997R by the order dated 10.5.1999 and therefore, that cannot be challenged or questioned. This plea made by the counsel for respondent No. 4 requires careful consideration. If the impugned order dated 16.8.2005 appointing the respondent No. 4 on compassionate ground was purely on the basis of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 10.5.1999 and not on any other ground as pointed out by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, then we will be constrained to hold that the petitioner/appellant has no case. 10. On the other hand, if there is no such positive direction by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R, then we are of the view that the validity of the order passed on 16.8.2005 by the authorities can certainly be gone into. For deciding that question, it would be worthwhile to verify the same by looking into the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R remitting the matter. The order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R is as follows.- 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Marathia, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee inharness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the concerned authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be afforded to the eligibly member of the family. 6. In the instant case it is not disputed that the petitioner is the only son of the first wife of the deceased employee. 6. In the instant case it is not disputed that the petitioner is the only son of the first wife of the deceased employee. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 4 is illegitimate son of the second wife of the deceased employee. From perusal of the impugned decision of the Committee, it appeared that only on the basis of a concessions made by the respondent No. 4 that he will not claim any monetary benefits payable to deceased, the Committee held that death-cum-retirement benefits should be paid to the petitioner being the son of first wife and employment should be given to the respondent No. 4 claiming to be the son of second wife. In my opinion, the Committee is not supposed to decide the question as to who will get retirement benefits and who will get employment on compassionate ground. As noticed above the appointment on compassionate ground should be provided to a eligible person who is entitled to get such employment. 7. Mr. A.K. Sinha, during course of argument, submitted that the respondent No. 4 may be entitled to get share in the retiral benefits but in no case he will be entitled to get employment on compassionate ground. 8. Be that as it may, it is not for the Compassionate Committee to take a decision on the basis of concession made by the respondent No. 4 that he will not claim any monetary benefits accrued to the deceased employee on his death. 9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and the impugned decision of the Compassionate Committee as contained in Annexure - 7 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made hereinabove." 11. The perusal of the above order passed by the learned Single Judge would hot indicate that any such positive direction was given in the said order. The matter is remitted back to the Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made hereinabove." 11. The perusal of the above order passed by the learned Single Judge would hot indicate that any such positive direction was given in the said order. On the other hand, it is observed that the District Compassionate Committee did not take into consideration the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Government, while recommending the appointment of Ram Janam Paswan and that the Committee, on the other hand, simply, on the basis of the concession made by Ram Janam Paswan, who is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee giving an undertaking that he will not claim the retiral benefits payable to the deceased father, directed that the death-cum-retiral benefits should be paid to Krishna Ram, being the son of the first wife and employment should be given to Ram Janam Paswan, claiming the son of the second wife. According to the learned Single Judge, this decision of the Committee taken on the basis of the concession given by one of the parties is not valid as the Committee is not supposed to decide the question as to who will get the retiral benefits and who will get the employment on compassionate ground. The appointment on compassionate ground should be provided to eligible person alone, who is entitled to get such employment. Therefore, the impugned decision dated 25.9.1997 of the District Compassionate Committee taken on the basis of the concession given by one of the parties was quashed land the matter was remitted back to the Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made above. 12. So the above observations of the learned Single Judge would make it clear that the District Compassionate Committee was specifically directed to consider the eligibility criteria as fixed by the State Government in order to take a decision as to who is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge directed the Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made therein. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge directed the Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made therein. The wordings of the order are as follows: The matter is remitted back to the Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made hereinabove. Thus it is clear that the above wordings contained in the order of the learned Single Judge would clearly indicate that there is no positive direction given for appointment of any person on compassionate ground, rather the District Compassionate Committee has been given liberty to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. This means that the learned Single Judge gave a direction to take fresh decision in accordance with the rules prescribed by and on the basis of the eligibility criteria as fixed by the State Government. Therefore, this Court, in the order dated 10.5.1999, did not at all give any positive direction to the Police Authorities to give appointment to Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge indicated in the order that the said decision over the issue was entirely left to the hands of the Committee. In other words, direction was to the effect that the fresh decision was to be taken by the district Compassionate Committee in accordance with law, taking into consideration the eligibility criteria as prescribed and the rules as framed by the State Government and not on any other grounds including the concession given by any of the parties. Hence, it has been made clear now that there was no positive direction in the order of the learned Single Judge to appoint this man or that man. 13. Now let us see whether the authority concerned has taken fresh decision in accordance with law. For the said purpose, it is necessary to go through the order of appointment dated 16.8.2005 issued in favour of Krishna Ram. 13. Now let us see whether the authority concerned has taken fresh decision in accordance with law. For the said purpose, it is necessary to go through the order of appointment dated 16.8.2005 issued in favour of Krishna Ram. The order of appointment dated 16.8.2005, which is in Hindi, is reproduced below: dk;kZy; mik;qDr] xok lkekU; kk[kk vknsk ;kfpdk la[;k lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 3487@1997 vkj0 es ikfjr vknsk ds vuqikyu esa ftyk vuqdEik lfefr dh fnukad 16-08-2005 dks iquvkZgwr cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa Jh jketUe ikloku firk Lo0 cukjlh ikloku] Fkkuk uxjmaVkjh ftudh fu;qfDr bl dk;kZy; ds vknsk Kkikad 298 fnukad 26-07-2003 }kjk dh xbZ Fkh dh rkRdkfyd izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa mudh lsok dks jn~n@lekIr djrs gq, muds LFkku ij Jh d`".kk jke] firk& Lo0 cukjlh ikloku dks fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS A fu;qDr pkSdhnkj dk osrueku 2550&55&2000&60&3200 ,oa le;<= ij ljdkj }kjk vuqekU; HkRrs ns; gksaxs A budh fu;qfDr dk krZ fuEuor gS% 01 ;g fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFk;kg gS A fu;qfDr i= fuxZr gksus ds 15 fnukas ds vUnj vlSfud kY; fpfdRld lg eq[;k fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] xok }kjk iznRr izek.k&i= ftyk pkSdhnkj kk[kk] xk tk;sxk A 02 Lo0 cukjlh ikloku HkwriwoZ pkSdhnkj ds vkfJr ifjokj dks Hkj.k&isk"k.k dk iw.kZ nkf;Roks dk fuokZg djuk gksxk A ,slk ugh djus ij bls xEHkhj dnkpkj ekuk tk;sxk] ftlds fy, vkids fo:) fu;ekuqlkj lalfpr dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh A 03 ;ksxnku ds le; kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izek.k&i= ewy :i esa tUe frfFk izek.k i= ,oa LokLF; izek.k&i= v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k izLrqr djuk gksxk A 04 ;g fu;qfDr] fu;qfDr i= /kkjd ds LoPN vkpj.k gksus dh fLFkfr esa dh tk jgh gS A ;fn iqfyl lR;kiu ds ckn dksbZ izfrdwy vkpj.k izfrosfnr gksrk gS rks ;g fu;qfDr fcuk dkj.k iwPNk ds lekIr @ jn~n dj nh tk;sxh A mik;qDr] xok A Kkikad 218 lk0 fnukad 16-8-2005 izfrfyfi%& iqfyl v/kh{kd] xok@vuqqeqMy inkf/kdkjh] uxjmaVkjh@vlSfud kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] xok@iqfyl mi/kh{kd] uxjmVkjh@ftyk dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh] xok@ vapy vf/kdkjh] uxj maVkjh@ Fkkuk izHkkjh] ujmaVkjh dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr A izfrfyfi%& Jh d`".kk jke] firk& Lo0 cukjlh ikloku] Fkkuk& uxjmaVkjh] ftyk&xok dks lwpukFkZ A The English translation to the order of appointment dated 16.8.2005 is as follow: Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (General Branch) ORDER In compliance to the order passed in CWJC No. 3437/97(R) and decision taken in the meeting of District Compassionate Committee dated 16.8.2005, the appointment of Sh. Ram Janam Ram son of late Banarsi Paswan, P.S. Nagar Untari, which was made by this office order Memo No. 298 dated 26.7.2003 is cancelled with immediate effect and consequent upon cancellation/termination of his services, in his place Krishna Ram son of late Banarasi Paswan is appointed. The pay scale of Appointed Chowkidar is Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 along with other emoluments sanctioned by the Government from time to time. The conditions of appointment are as follows: 1. This appointment is purely temporary. Within 15 days of the dispatch of appointment letter, the fitness certificate from Civil Surgeon and Chief Medical Officer, Garhwh has to be produced in District Chowkidah Branch, Garhwa and report his joining in Nagar Untari Police Station, otherwise the appointment will be treated as cancelled. 2. He has to take full responsibility regarding maintenance of dependent family of Late Bansrasi Paswan, Ex-Chowkidar. Not doing so will be treated as serious misconduct and as per rules, appropriate action will be taken against him. 3. At the time of joining, he has to submit educational qualification certificate (in original), date of birth certificate and fitness certificate before the undersigned. 4. This appointment is made keeping in view the good character of receiver of appointment letter. If in police verification, any adverse character/conduct is reported, this appointment will be cancelled/terminated without any show cause. Sd/- 16.8.2005 Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa Memo No. 218/Sa Dated 16.8.2005 Copy forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Garhwa,/Sub-divisional Officer, Nagar Untari/Civil Surgeon and Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagar Untari/District Treasury Officer, Garhwa/Circle Officer, Nagar Untari/Officer-in-charge, Nagar Untari Police Station for information and necessary action. Copy forwarded to Sh. Krishna Ram son of late Banarsi, Paswan, P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa for information and compliance. 14. The reading of the above appointment letter would reveal that the authority appointed Krishna Ram on compassionate ground only in compliance with the order passed in CWJC No. 3437/1997R and not on any other ground. There is no indication that fresh decision has been taken by the Committee independently on the basis of the eligibility criteria. On the other hand, the District Compassionate Committee, being under impression that already High Court passed an order, directing the authorities to appoint Krishna Ram in place of Ram Janam Paswan, has simply passed an order for compliance of the High Court order. On the other hand, the District Compassionate Committee, being under impression that already High Court passed an order, directing the authorities to appoint Krishna Ram in place of Ram Janam Paswan, has simply passed an order for compliance of the High Court order. As indicated above, the High Court never directed the Committee or the authority to pass an order appointing Krishna Ram. On the other hand, the High Court simply directed the District Compassionate Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, taking into consideration the eligibility criteria alone. The State Government has prescribed various criteria with regard to eligibility. Admittedly, those things have not been considered by the District Compassionate Committee. Further, out of anxiety to escape from the liability of contempt, which was pending at the relevant time before this Court, the District Compassionate Committee hurriedly passed an order on 16.8.2005 and thereafter the same was reported to the Court in the contempt application and on that basis, contempt proceeding was dropped. 15. It is to be noted in this context that even though the learned Single Judge passed the order in CWJC No. 3437/1997R, remitting the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law, the District Compassionate Committee has not chosen to take any decision after giving opportunity to both the parties. The Committee chose to pass the order hurriedly cancelling the appointment of Ram Janam Paswan and appointing Krishna Ram on compassionate ground only on 16.8.2005, that too when the Police Authorities were summoned to appear before this Court in the contempt proceeding. 16. To have a clear picture on the points whether there was any positive direction for appointment and whether the fresh decision taken by the Committee was in accordance with law, it is very much relevant to examine the prayer made by respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, in CWJC No. 3437/97(R) and order passed thereon. 16. To have a clear picture on the points whether there was any positive direction for appointment and whether the fresh decision taken by the Committee was in accordance with law, it is very much relevant to examine the prayer made by respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, in CWJC No. 3437/97(R) and order passed thereon. Therefore, it is not out of place to mention that even though Krishna Ram made two-fold prayer before the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R - (i) to quash the letter dated 25.9.1997 containing the order of appointment in favour of Ram Janam Paswan and (ii) to appoint him in place of Ram Janam Paswan on compassionate ground, learned Single Judge was pleased to grant only the first prayer, namely, quashing of the letter dated 25.9.1997 and was not pleased to grant the second prayer, namely, appointment of Krishna Ram. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to allow the District Compassionate Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Therefore, it is clear that no positive direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to appoint Krishna Ram. The learned Single Judge may have incidentally mentioned that Krishna Ram is the son of the first wife and Ram Janam Paswan is the son of second wife of the deceased employee. It does not mean that the learned Single Judge has given any opinion with reference to eligibility since he felt that the District Compassionate Committee had to consider that aspect also along with eligibility criteria as fixed by the State Government. 17. Those aspects have not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition in W.P (S) No. 6664/05 filed by Ram Janam Paswan by the order dated 23.3.2006. 18. In view of the above circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to cancel the order passed by the District Compassionate Committee, dated 16.8.2005 and set aside the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge and to remit the matter to the District Compassionate Committee to decide about the question as to who is entitled to compassionate appointment only on the basis of eligibility criteria as prescribed by the State Government. Accordingly directed. Accordingly directed. The Committee, before taking decision, has to give opportunity to both of them to produce the materials and on the basis of the materials available on record the Committee can take a fresh decision independently, being uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in earlier writ petition or by this Court in this L.P.A. 19. It is now pointed out by the learned Counsel for petitioner that subsequent to the order dated 10.5.1999, some criminal case was registered against Krishna Ram for serious offences, like 326 and 307 I.P.C etc. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, that is a false case and criminal case is pending against Ram Janam Paswan also. 20. This Court is not inclined to give any finding in this regard. If the Government Rule prescribes any eligibility criterion with reference to the pendency of criminal case for appointment of a person on compassionate ground, that may be taken into consideration by the Committee. Therefore the entire decision is left to the hands of the Committee with regard to the question as to who is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the materials on record, taking into consideration the eligibility criteria fixed under the Rules framed by the State Government. 21. It is the settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is to be made only on the basis of eligibility criteria fixed under the Rules framed by the State Government as laid down in the following decisions: (1) 1998 (1) PLJR 769 Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. v. Ujjawal Kumar Ray and Ors. (2) Bachandeo Kumar v. Bharat Coking coal Ltd. and Ors. (3) State Bank of India and Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur. The relevant observations made in 1998 (1) PLJR 769 (supra) are as follows: 8. ...Relying on the earlier Division Bench decision in Kanahiya Kumars case, it has been held that the persons in whose cases the personal law is applicable, such persons acquire right of property, etc. However, so far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, the same is based on the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time and in the definition of dependent certain persons have been included like son, daughter, etc. However, so far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, the same is based on the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time and in the definition of dependent certain persons have been included like son, daughter, etc. It was further held that by virtue of such circular, a person acquires right for consideration for such appointment on compassionate ground but it is not necessary that if a person is son of a deceased employee, even his own son, automatically acquires right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground because there are various factors to be taken into consideration i.e. fill such person fulfills the certain criteria laid down by the State Government, he cannot be appointed. 9. Thus, it is clear that even if a legally adopted son is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground but he must fulfil the criteria laid down for such appointment. Similarly an illegitimate child of a deceased employee is also entitled to get appointment on compassionate around subject to, however, fulfillment of certain criteria laid down by the authority. The relevant observations made in 2006 (3) JCR 380 (Jhr) (supra) are as follows: Where rules and norms have been laid down, the compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with such rules/norms. The relevant observations made in (supra) are as follows: The High Court also failed to appreciate a well settled principle of law laid down by this Court in the case of L.I.C of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedar (Mrs) and Anr. , the Court cannot order appointment on compassionate ground, de hors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and that hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment de hors the statutory provision. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment was at the discretion of the authority which was to be exercised keeping in view the scheme and the object/rationale behind it.... 22. Accordingly, the District Compassionate Committee, after hearing both the parties afresh and allowing both of them to place materials before it, will decide the issue, taking into consideration the eligibility criteria fixed under the rules framed by the State Government in the light of the settled principles of law quoted in the above decisions. 23. 22. Accordingly, the District Compassionate Committee, after hearing both the parties afresh and allowing both of them to place materials before it, will decide the issue, taking into consideration the eligibility criteria fixed under the rules framed by the State Government in the light of the settled principles of law quoted in the above decisions. 23. To sum up: (1) The impugned order dated 16.8.2005 as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside; (2) The matter is remitted back to the District Compassionate Committee to decide the issue afresh giving liberty to both the parties to place materials on record as well as their written representations along with records to substantiate their claims. (3) The Committee will decide and answer the issue afresh as to who is entitled to compassionate appointment only on the basis of the eligibility criteria prescribed and fixed under rules framed by the State Government, taking into consideration all the guidelines given by this Court as well as by Supreme Court in the above decisions. 24. Both the parties are directed to approach the District Compassionate Committee and to place materials before it along with their respective representations with records. Then the Committee will give opportunity of hearing to both of them and decide the issue afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the order passed in earlier writ petition as well as the order passed in the present writ petition and order passed in this L.P.A. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Amareshwar Sahay, J. 25. I agree.