JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.8.2006 passed by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the brother of the petitioner was employed in Government service from before. 3. The petitioners mother was working on Class IV post of Sweepress and she died while in service on 11.7.1995 leaving behind two sons and two daughters. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment on 27.9.1996. The petitioner claims to be Class VII pass. 4. The admitted position is that the elder brother of the petitioner is in Government service in Class IV post, from before the death of mother. The petitioners claim for compassionate appointment was earlier recommended by the District Compassionate Committee, Supaul, but the same was rejected by the Department. However, the petitioner claimed that the order was not communicated to him and filed C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 2006 and by order dated 19.5.2006 this Court remitted the matter back to the Commissioner/Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. On reconsideration the impugned order dated 12.8.2006 has been passed by which the case of the petitioner has been again rejected on the ground that one member of the family, Sri Satya Narayan Raut, the elder brother of petitioner was employed from before and had also received the death-cum-retiral benefits of his mother alongwith the petitioner. It was further held that the petitioner had suppressed the fact regarding the employment of his brother in Government service in his application and affidavit dated 18.7.1995 for compassionate appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner amounts to review of the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by this Court. It is submitted by him that the elder brother of the petitioner was living separately since life time of his mother and the same was thus sufficient ground for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 6. In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. 6. In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. : 2007(4) PLJR 511 , in which case the wife was employed and it was found that she was living separately from the writ petitioner-appellant, which was held to be a ground for setting aside the order of the authorities and that of the learned Single Judge and the matter was remitted back to the concerned respondent to reconsider the matter of appointment in accordance with the Rules. 7. In my view, the case of the petitioner cannot find any support from the said decision of the Division Bench in the case of husband and wife and the fact of separation between them. In fact, this case is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. : 2004(2) PLJR 453 , in Paragraphs-3 & 4 of which it was held as follows: "3. The matter relates to seeking a job in the Rural Engineering Organisation Department. The job was denied by the Committee on the ground that the elder brother of the appellant, had been gainfully employed in the State Bank of India. The contention of the appellant is to the effect that his brother and father were separate and evidence was offered, to the effect, that this was so. 4. The court is afraid, this logic of law will not apply for 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 appointment only to one person and when one is gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any distinction between his case and the facts in the case of Vishal Kumar. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference with the impugned order dated 12.8.2006. 10. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.