Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 285 (PAT)

BRAJESH PRASAD SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR

2012-02-16

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2012
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners who were eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Government policy dated 05.10.1991 have been appointed in Government service on a class-IV post but their grievance is that they ought to have been appointed against class-III post, inasmuch as, they had the qualification for a class-III post. Mr. Mangalam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in similar case of one Manoj Kumar who too was appointed initially on a class-IV post, he was subsequently appointed on a class-III post when the ORDER :was issued by this Court to reconsider his case in C.W.J.C No. 2825 of 2006. He has also relied on an ORDER :dated 27.01.2012 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1811 of 2012 (Rakesh Kumar Suman vs The State of Bihar and Ors), wherein, a direction has been given to reconsider the case of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Suman against class-III post. 3. Mr. Mukhopadhayay learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand submits that the case of Manoj Kumar is distinguishable in the facts, inasmuch as, in the next case it was on account of judicial ORDER :passed by this court that the Authorities had ultimately appointed him against class-III post and that too after getting the revised recommendation from the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. 4. Mr. Mangalam has placed reliance on the case of Rakesh Kumar Suman (supra) where it has been held as follows:- Law of compassionate appointment is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but its validity has been upheld only on account that it is for the purpose of providing solace to the bereaved family of the deceased employee. This Court has already held that no applicant has a right to a post and appointment offered to an applicant is to be accepted or denied. Hence, if the Compassionate Committee recommends for appointment of a candidate on a class-IV post, he can claim that he should have been appointed on a class-III post. But since the appointment on compassionate grounds is also a public employment the authorities are required to maintain uniformity and equality in consideration in this matter also as between the candidates. Hence, if the Compassionate Committee recommends for appointment of a candidate on a class-IV post, he can claim that he should have been appointed on a class-III post. But since the appointment on compassionate grounds is also a public employment the authorities are required to maintain uniformity and equality in consideration in this matter also as between the candidates. It is not open to them to make pick and choose and take arbitrary decisions by providing appointment to some candidate on class-III posts whereas appointing others similarly situated on class-IV posts. A uniform yardstick and consideration has to be applied by the authorities while considering the cases of applicants for compassionate appointments. If no rationale is discernible from the decision of the concerned authorities in selecting some candidates for appointment on class-III posts and others for appointment on class-IV posts, the decision may become arbitrary and malafide. 5. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, that while he was selected and appointed only for the class-IV post on 01.07.2006, whereas persons similarly situated including Manoj Kumar have been appointed on a class-III post after changing their earlier ORDER :of appointment on a class-IV post. 6. In that view of the matter, this court would again take recourse to the same ORDER :which was passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Suman (Supra), wherein, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to file fresh representation before staking his claim for class-III post. 7. These applications are accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file their fresh separate representation before the concerned Authority staking their claim for appointment on class-III post by citing specific example of identical cases. If the petitioners, however, do so within a period of four weeks, the respondents shall consider as to whether at the time of the appointment of the petitioners they had not adopted the uniform yardstick recommending the candidates for appointment on class-III post. 8. Considering the instance cited in the representation of the petitioners in this regard before taking appropriate decision, it would be open for the respondents to also take into account the circular issued by the Chief Secretary on 2nd of July, 2007 laying down the manner of appointment on class-III/IV post. 9. Such exercise must be completed by the Authority within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners. 10. 9. Such exercise must be completed by the Authority within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners. 10. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.