ORDER : Navin Sinha, J. 1. I.A. No. 7441 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of approximately 98 days in filing of the appeal. We have considered the explanation for the delay and submissions on behalf of the parties. 2. Considering the important question of law involved in the larger public interest, we deem it proper to condone the delay. 3. The respondent is stated to be the son born to the deceased employee from the second marriage solemnized by him during subsistence of the first marriage. The deceased did not take permission under Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 before solemnising the second marriage during subsistence of the first. It therefore constituted a misconduct. The claim for compassionate appointment by the son born from this second marriage has been denied under a policy decision 23.6.2005 referring to Rule 23 that the personal law had no relationship with the claim for compassionate appointment. 4. Learned Single Judge opined that the policy dated 23.6.2005 was contrary to a Bench decision reported in 2004(4) PLJR 366 (Mustaque Ahmad v. State of Bihar) which primarily directed the State to form a policy only. 5. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the claim could not have been allowed in view of the policy dated 23.6.2005 as compassionate appointment was not a matter of right. There Is no finding that the policy was arbitrary or irrational before striking it down. 6. Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment reported in 2005(3) PLJR 458 (Purushottam Kumar @ Purooshattam Kumar v. State of Bihar). 7. Service jurisprudence mandates by a plethora of precedence that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule for appointment in accordance with Article 14 preceded by an advertisement and open merit selection considering that all employment under the State constitutes a national wealth and there must be equal opportunity for all. A compassionate appointee escapes the rigors of selection because of which a more genuine candidate may have to be denied consideration because the post had been filled up. But, compassionate appointment has been considered as an exception to the same where the particular facts and circumstances of a case may reveal it to be a compelling necessity. A compassionate appointee escapes the rigors of selection because of which a more genuine candidate may have to be denied consideration because the post had been filled up. But, compassionate appointment has been considered as an exception to the same where the particular facts and circumstances of a case may reveal it to be a compelling necessity. It has therefore been held repeatedly that any such appointment has to be strictly and only in accordance with the policy decision of the State and no direction for compassionate appointment can be given de hors the policy. A policy decision can be struck down only if it is arbitrary or irrational based on no cogent justification or classification. 8. Purushottam Kumar (supra) notices Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules and holds that a marriage solemnized by a Government servant in violation of the same constitutes a misconduct. It then holds that in absence of any objection during lifetime of the deceased it was not relevant for decision of the controversy. Invoking the personal law under the Hindu Marriage Act it grants relief relying on AIR 2000 SC 735 [: 2000(2) PLJR (SC)15] (Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.) relating to pension claim holding that child born from such second marriage was not illegitimate. 9. In 2002 (2) PLJR 253 (Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar) the learned Single Judge was considering a similar claim for compassionate appointment denied under a like policy decision under Rule 23 vide Government Circular No. 13293 dated 5.10.1991 holding that it would be anomalous if the claim for compassionate appointment could originate from the misconduct committed in service by the deceased. This has been followed in another Bench decision reported in 2010 (3) BBCJ 258 (Sarjan Singh v. State of Bihar). Similar view has been taken in 2004(1) PLJR 37 (Vinod Kumar v. State of Bihar). Purushottam Kumar (supra) does not consider these pronouncements. In (2008)8 SCC 475 (State Bank of India v. Anju Jain), it was held that misconduct in service can be valid justification to deny compassionate appointment. 10. Judicial discipline, in our opinion, requires that we do not attempt to distinguish Purushottam Kumar (supra) on basis of para 5 of that judgment. 11. Purushottam Kumar (supra) does not consider these pronouncements. In (2008)8 SCC 475 (State Bank of India v. Anju Jain), it was held that misconduct in service can be valid justification to deny compassionate appointment. 10. Judicial discipline, in our opinion, requires that we do not attempt to distinguish Purushottam Kumar (supra) on basis of para 5 of that judgment. 11. An important element in judicial pronouncements is certainty of the legal position where both the litigant and the State authorities as also the lawyers are made aware of the clear exposition of the law so that no confusion prevails on any aspect for all concerned. 12. We, therefore, consider it appropriate that the records be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the desirability of constituting a larger Bench to lay down the correct law on the issue. In the meantime operation of the order under appeal shall remain stayed.