ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, Awdhesh Ram on 17th January, 2005 while working as Jan Sevak at Manjhgaon Block stands denied by the impugned order at Annexure-3 bearing Memo No. 211 (g) pursuant to the decision taken by District Compassionate Appointment Committee, West Singhbhum. Petitioner admittedly is the son born out from the second wife of the deceased employee, namely, Trimani Kunwar. The grounds for rejection are:- (i) That son born out from the second wife is not entitled to compassionate appointment. (ii) Petitioner did not have minimum educational qualification of Matric in terms of Finance Department Resolution no. 1859 dated 2nd September, 2011 since he was only 9th pass. 3. Both grounds of rejection are being challenged on behalf of petitioner, inter alia, on the following submissions. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that the son born out from the second wife also stands on a similar footing, as the son of first wife as he is not considered to be an illegitimate child in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. If in the matter of inheritance no distinction is there between son born out from first and second wife, there is no reason why such distinction should be made in such matters of compassionate appointment. Reliance has been placed upon Division Bench judgment rendered by Patna High Court reported in M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others vs. Ujjawal Kumar Ray, (1998) 1 PLJR 769 . Counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid judgment at para 8 another judgment of Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Shri Kamal Ranjan, (1994) 2 PLJR 536 has also been relied. 4. Learned senior counsel has also sought to explain the ratio rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad vs. Basanti Devi and Others, 2011 (3) JCR 111 (Jhr.). He submits that ground of rejection on that distinction is therefore unsustainable in law. 4. Learned senior counsel has also sought to explain the ratio rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad vs. Basanti Devi and Others, 2011 (3) JCR 111 (Jhr.). He submits that ground of rejection on that distinction is therefore unsustainable in law. He has also assailed the second ground of rejection by relying upon matriculation certificate enclosed as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder which shows that petitioner was a matriculate on 10th May, 2008 as per marks-sheet issued by Jharkhand Academic Council where date of birth is also shown as 15th January, 1991. 5. The stand of the respondents is that the claim of the petitioner is untenable in law and facts as he is the son born out from the second wife who is not entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of department circular governing the cases of compassionate appointment. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Basanti Devi (supra) in support of the aforesaid contention where the judgment rendered by Patna High Court in the case of Purushottam Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2005 (3) PLJR 458 has been differed from. 6. I have considered the submission of the parties in the light of aforesaid materials on record and also the judgment relied upon by them. In the first place, it is to be noted that in terms of well settled ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments such as State Bank of India and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 and State of Gujarat and Others vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 545 , the scheme of compassionate appointment is in the nature of an exception to the general Rule that appointment to public offices are to be in conformity with Article 16 of the Constitution of India where all eligible persons are entitled to equal opportunity. It has further been held that since compassionate appointment is in the nature of an exception it has to be considered within the scheme of compassionate appointment laid down by employer or the Government under whom the employee died in harness. 7. It has further been held that since compassionate appointment is in the nature of an exception it has to be considered within the scheme of compassionate appointment laid down by employer or the Government under whom the employee died in harness. 7. In the instant case, the circular governing compassionate appointment of dependent of a deceased employee is of 5th October, 1991 which does not provide for appointment to a son born out from second marriage. That is why the claim for compassionate appointment made on behalf of petitioner, has been rejected based upon legal opinion furnished by Government Advocate to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Learned Division Bench in the case of Basanti Devi after consideration of ratio laid down in the case of Purushottam Kumar by Division Bench of Patna High Court at para 11 and 12 clearly expressed its inability to subscribe to the view laid down in Purushottam Kumar's case at para 14 of the judgment. The reason born out from the discussion in the said judgment are that matters of compassionate appointment depend solely upon the Rules governing the service of the employee and the scheme framed by employer. Such an employment is in the frame of contract between employer and employee and cannot be made subject matter to be governed by personal law. The matter relating to inheritance and alienation of property are governed by Customary or the Personal Law of the parties which though provides for legitimacy to the son born out from second wife, but that analogy cannot be drawn in the matters of compassionate appointment. Para 14 of the said report is being quoted hereunder:- "Para-14 – With respect, we are unable to subscribe the view expressed in Purushotam Kumar's case. Firstly, the compassionate appointment and right to inherit property have no co-relation, nor can be equated in any manner. The compassionate appointment is not a property which can be subject matter of alienation and can be bequeathed whereas the devolving of property of a person is governed by the law, may it be customary or may it be statutory law, whereas the service and benefit arising out of services are governed by the frame of the contract of service or the rules governing the service of the employees and by the scheme, if framed by the employer. The compassionate appointment depends solely upon the frame of contract between the employer and employee and cannot be made subject matter to be governed by the personal law, when the employer has not provided so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar (supra) clearly held that compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such appointment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. Therefore, in our humble opinion, merely because illegitimate child has been put at par in the matter of inheritance, by specific and statutory provision, its benefit cannot be extended, so as to put a burden upon the employer, when the employer specifically has disallowed such benefit to such successor of the employee." 8. The ratio expressed by learned Division Bench in the case of M/s. BCCL vs. Ujjawal Kumar Rai (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is also in line with the ratio laid down in the case of Purushottam Kumar by learned Division Bench of Patna High Court. Since a contrary view has been taken by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basanti Devi on the ratio laid down in Purushottam Kumar's case, therefore, the view expressed in the case of Basanti Devi is to guide this Court also. Though learned senior counsel for petitioner has tried to explain that judgment in the case of Basanti Devi was in the context of circular dated 2nd January, 1992 of Railway Board, but as it appears from the discussions made in the said judgment, learned Division Bench has dealt with the reasoning of Central Administrative Tribunal which relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Purushottam Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra). Purushottam Kumar's case dealt with the matters of compassionate appointment under the circular dated 5th October, 1991 of Government of Bihar which also governs the cases of compassionate appointment of dependent of deceased employee dying in harness under the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, the view expressed by learned Division Bench in the case of Basanti Devi (supra) on the import of circular dated 5th October, 1991 is also binding on this Court. Therefore, the view expressed by learned Division Bench in the case of Basanti Devi (supra) on the import of circular dated 5th October, 1991 is also binding on this Court. Since the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the grounds that he was not entitled for compassionate appointment being the son born out from the second wife which is being upheld by this Court, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the rejection of petitioner's case on the ground that he was not a matriculate is proper or not. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.