JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the original writ petitioner against the order dated 17th March, 2017 passed in Civil Review No. 15 of 2014 arising out of the W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant to review the order dated 5th February, 2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008. 2. We have heard the counsels for both the sides. 3. The appellant’s father died in harness on 02.07.2005 while working as teacher in the District of Chatra under the respondent–Government of Jharkhand. The appellant/petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. In the meeting of Compassionate Committee held on 30.05.2006 the appointment of the appellant was recommended for Grade-III Post. It is stated that the appellant was appointed on Grade-IV post in the Ganga Smarak High School Gidhaure Block Gidhaure, District-Chatra vide appointment letter dated 01.06.2007. The appellant claimed to be duly qualified having degree in Master in Arts. It is further stated that the respondents have discriminated the appellant as one Naveen Kant Sinha was also recommended and appointed in Grade-III post in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. One Matric passed candidate namely Anuradha Devi was also appointed in Grade-III post pursuant to the decision of the Compassionate Committee held on 16.10.2004. According to the appellant, five persons have been appointed in Grade-III post, who were having lesser qualification. Thus the appellant approached this Court in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008 with a prayer to appoint him in Grade-III post. 4. The stand of the respondents in counter-affidavit is that the appellant was recommended for Grade-III post by the Compassionate Committee on 30.05.2006. This has been brought in the notice vide letter no. 1078 dated 27.04.2005 which was issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi. According to the said letter of appointment on Grade-III post could not be made by the District Appointment Committee. The aforesaid error was amended in the subsequent meeting of the Committee held on 22.09.2006. So far as Naveen Kant Sinha is concerned, he was recommended in Grade-III post due to inadvertence and typing mistake, which was corrected in the subsequent meeting of the Compassionate Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on 22.09.2006 as being in Grade-IV. The aforesaid error was amended in the subsequent meeting of the Committee held on 22.09.2006. So far as Naveen Kant Sinha is concerned, he was recommended in Grade-III post due to inadvertence and typing mistake, which was corrected in the subsequent meeting of the Compassionate Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on 22.09.2006 as being in Grade-IV. So far as the appointment of Anuradha Devi is concerned, it has been stated that the same was done according to the letter no. 581 dated 25.02.2005 issued by the Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. On these facts it is stated that the action of the respondents is not arbitrary or discriminatory. It is further stated that the appellant having been appointed on Grade-IV post on compassionate ground and having accepted the same, he cannot claim appointment on any particular post as a matter of right. Learned Single Judge after considering the various judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in question, came to the conclusion that the appellant got appointment on Grade-IV post upon decision of the Compassionate Committee duly revised on the subsequent date on 22.09.2006 and accepted it. The earlier recommendation made vide minutes dated 30.05.2006 was rectified as there was no power of the Compassionate Committee to make appointment on compassionate ground for Grade-III post as there was error in the recommendation. It is well settled principle that the compassionate appointment on particular post is not a matter of right. The letter dated 27.04.2005 of the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi was brought to the notice of the committee under which such appointment could not have been recommended by the District Appointment Committee. Compassionate appointment not being a matter of right is extended to meet exigency created because of the death of the bread earner. This has to be done under the scheme framed by the employer in the respective Organization in respect of a deceased employee. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of discrimination in the decision making process in the meeting held by the Compassionate Committee in which the appellant’s case was recommended finally for Grade-IV post. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of discrimination in the decision making process in the meeting held by the Compassionate Committee in which the appellant’s case was recommended finally for Grade-IV post. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to make out any case of discrimination and the appellant was appointed on Grade-IV post and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appellant moved in review petition for reviewing the judgment passed vide order dated 05.02.2014 in W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008 before the learned Single Judge. It is contended that the review petition has been preferred on discovery of certain facts and documents after passing of the impugned judgment. The appellant contends before the learned Single Judge that two persons whose names were recommended for the Class-IV post in the meeting of District Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 22nd September, 2006 namely Rajesh Bakhla and Vikash Kumar have been appointed on class-III post by the respondent, later on, on compassionate grounds as per order dated 21st May, 2007, Annexure-1 and minutes of the District Appointment Committee, Chatra dated 29th May, 2009 Annexure-2 to the Review Petition. Learned single Judge in view of the conspicuous fact being brought to the notice of the court directed the respondent-State to file their response. Pursuant to the order of the Court, representative of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra i.e. Deputy Development Commissioner, Mr. Birsay Oraon and Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh appeared before the learned Single Judge. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag stated before the learned Single Judge that the order dated 21st May 2007, for appointment of Rajesh Bakhla on Class-III post, passed by his predecessor was withdrawn after due show cause to the said person namely Rajesh Bakhla and the matter has been placed before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra for final decision. According to him in terms of Government’s circulars decision to appoint a person on compassionate grounds was within the jurisdiction of District Compassionate Appointment Committee. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag was not the appointing authority. According to him in terms of Government’s circulars decision to appoint a person on compassionate grounds was within the jurisdiction of District Compassionate Appointment Committee. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag was not the appointing authority. In the supplementary affidavit, he has referred the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra held on 31st January, 2017, in which inter alia, stated as follows:- “(i) That as per Clause 15(Ga) of the letter no. 10167 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, is not competent authority for making appointment on compassionate ground. (ii) That on account of the aforesaid direction, the District Compassionate Committee, Chatra is not authorized to change the post of Rajesh Bakhla which has been done by the compassionate committee on 22.09.2006.” 6. As such the change in the cadre on the part of the then R.D.D.E., Hazaribag was unauthorized and contrary to the circular of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa. Learned Single Judge after considering the order dated 28.02.2007 came to the conclusion that there was no specific direction upon the Regional Deputy Director, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag to appoint the appellant on a particular cadre post. But the direction was given to the respondents to take final decision within the stipulated time. Realizing the mistake, the respondents have withdrawn the said order which stands approved by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra in its meeting dated 31st January, 2017. The case of Navin Kant Sinha has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in review order dated 17th March, 2017 in paragraph 11 and 12 of the said judgment which reads as under: “11. The other person, Navin Kant Sinha had also approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 11 of 2008 with a prayer to direct the respondent to issue letter of appointment in his favour on Class–III post in the light of purported recommendation made by the District Compassionate Appointment committee in its meeting held on 30th May, 2006. The said petitioner has cited example of Rajesh Bakhla whose name was also considered in the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 30th May, 2006 and had been offered appointment to Class-III Post. The said petitioner has cited example of Rajesh Bakhla whose name was also considered in the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 30th May, 2006 and had been offered appointment to Class-III Post. Learned Single Judge in the case of Navin Kant Sinha Vs.- State of Jharkhand & Others by judgment dated 6th January, 2009 observed as follows: “In my opinion, the petitioner had certainly made out a case which would call for reconsideration of his claim for his appointment to Class-3 post. While making the above observation, this Court is conscious of the fact that a candidate cannot claim appointment in any particular post where such appointment is granted to him on compassionate grounds. However, if, as in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there are circumstances to indicate that some element of discrimination in the matter of granting appointment to him in Class-4 posts while others were offered appointment to Class-3 posts, this Court would certainly feel inclined to issue appropriate directions to the concerned authorities for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case. 11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the respondents no. 5 namely the Regional Deputy Director of Education North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, is directed to consider the petitioner’s grievance, take a final decision on the matter and if the petitioner is found eligible for his appointment to Class-3 post and if there is a vacancy in Class-3 posts then, to consider the same in accordance with law and procedure and communicate such decision to the petitioner effectively. This exercise must be carried out by the respondent No. 5 within three months from the date of his order. With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.” 12. Consequent thereto, the Regional Deputy Director, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh by an office order dated 27th March, 2009 has issued the order of appointment on Class-III Post to the said person. He had also recorded, as per the information furnished by the District Education Officer through letter no. 240 dated 27th March, 2009, that the said person, namely, Navin Kant Sinha had not joined on Class-IV Post. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra however in its meeting held on 13th January, 2017 though referred to Resolution no. He had also recorded, as per the information furnished by the District Education Officer through letter no. 240 dated 27th March, 2009, that the said person, namely, Navin Kant Sinha had not joined on Class-IV Post. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra however in its meeting held on 13th January, 2017 though referred to Resolution no. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991, whereunder change of cadre cannot be permitted in cases of appointment on compassionate ground, proceeded to come to a decision that no such change in the cadre of person Navin Kant Sinha can be made in view of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 11 of 2008 and in view of the circular dated 1st December, 2015 bearing no. 10167 Clause 15 (Ga) of the Department of Personnel, Administrate Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. ” 7. So far as the case of Vikash Kumar is concerned, minutes dated 13th January, 2017 states that his case was also recommended on Class-IV post in the meeting of Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 22nd September, 2006. However, it was amended later on taking into account the educational qualification of B.Com. of the said candidate, Vikash Kumar. He was accordingly appointed on Class-III post. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it transpires that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 22nd September 2006 sought to correct recommendation of Rejesh Bakhla and Vikash Kumar apart from certain other names made erroneously on class-III post in its earlier meeting held on 30th May, 2006. As per the order passed in the writ petition, the appointment of Anuradha Devi on Class-III Post also relied upon by the petitioner in writ petition was found to be in a different transaction and in terms of the order dated 25th February, 2005 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that the respondent in the writ petition through their counter affidavit have clearly pleaded that the appointment on Class-III cadre post made by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on 30th May, 2006 was a mistake, which was corrected in the next meeting held on 22nd September, 2006 taking into account the letter no. 1078 dated 24th April 2005 issued by Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, whereunder appointment on Class-III Post could not be undertaken on compassionate appointment. 1078 dated 24th April 2005 issued by Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, whereunder appointment on Class-III Post could not be undertaken on compassionate appointment. Such appointment could be made through J.P.S.C. as per letter dated 27th march, 2005. Learned Single Judge in its judgment passed vide order dated 17th March, 2017 in Civil Review No. 15 of 2014 came to a definite finding in paragraph 16 of the judgment which reads as under: “The facts presented before this Court by way of counter affidavit in the writ petition, persuaded this Court to come to a definite finding that recommendation to appoint on Class-III post made by minutes dated 30th May, 2006 were rectified in the subsequent compassionate appointment committee meeting held on 22nd September,2006. Petitioner had admittedly also got appointment on Grade-IV Post as per the revised decision of compassionate appointment committee. It was also found that District Compassionate Appointment Committee had taken into account the latter dated 27th April, 2005 of Director, Secondary Education while making such correction in its meeting held on 22nd September, 2006. This Court observed that compassionate appointment is granted to meet exigency on the death of a bread earner under the scheme framed by the employer in the respective organization. Petitioner had failed to make out any case of discrimination in the decision making process in the meeting held by the Compassionate Committee which recommended him for appointment on Class-IV Post finally.” 8. Learned Single Judge held that the case of Anuradha Devi was found to be not in respect of the same transaction, therefore, it was held that the ratio rendered by the learned Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012(1)JLJR327 would not apply to the appellant’s case as they relate to the case of persons falling under the same recommendation , who were appointed on Class-III post and Class-IV Post in other cases and that was felt to be unreasonable by learned Division Bench. After having detailed discussion the learned Single Judge came to the findings (i) that compassionate appointment is permissible on the death of an employee in harness as per the scheme or circular prevalent in the organization. Once a person accepts the appointment on compassionate ground on a particular post, subsequent change of cadre on the same ground is not permissible. After having detailed discussion the learned Single Judge came to the findings (i) that compassionate appointment is permissible on the death of an employee in harness as per the scheme or circular prevalent in the organization. Once a person accepts the appointment on compassionate ground on a particular post, subsequent change of cadre on the same ground is not permissible. (ii) the other aspect relates to the factual matrix of the case presented before the writ court. This Court was led to believe that petitioner has not been able to make out case of discrimination. However, as it emerges subsequently despite the recommendation dated 22nd September, 2006 persons like Rajesh Bakhla and Vikash Kumar, who were covered under the same transaction, have been appointed on Class-III post by one or the other order in the same district. The appointment of Rajesh Bakhla on Class-III Post however was recalled during the pendency of review petition and affirmed by District Compassionate Appointment Committee. The learned Single Judge was conscious of the fact that as to why similar yardstick has not been applied in the case of Vikash Kumar also by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in whose case as per the meeting held on 30th January, 2017, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra has taken a different stand. In any case, once the appointment of appellant was recommended on Class-IV post and recommendation for appointment on Class-III post was not permissible in view of the circular dated 27th March, 2005 and District Compassionate Appointment Committee also had taken into account in its meeting held on 22nd September, 2006, the appellant cannot claim appointment on Class-III past as a matter of right. Any appointment made in the teeth of departmental circulars and recommendation dated 22nd September, 2006 of District Appointment Committee would not create a legal right in favour of the appellant for appointment on Class-III Post. The concept of equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India does not flow in a negative manner. Any appointment made in the teeth of departmental circulars and recommendation dated 22nd September, 2006 of District Appointment Committee would not create a legal right in favour of the appellant for appointment on Class-III Post. The concept of equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India does not flow in a negative manner. The Deputy Commissioner and District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra were accordingly directed by the learned Single Judge to reconsider the case of Vikash Kumar or other similarly situated candidates in the light of the observation made in the review of the judgment and also directed to reconsider the case of Navin Kant sinha if it is found that his name was also considered in the same transaction like appointment of the petitioners, Rajesh Bakhla and Vikash Kumar, if necessary after seeking leave of the Court. Learned Single Judge has taken into account powers and scope of review and considering every aspect of the matter dismissed the review petition. Learned Single Judge held that the impugned order cannot be rendered unsound only on account of a decision taken by the respondent authorities which was contrary to the settle law. Learned single Judge has taken a strong view in the matter to the fact that the action of the respondent in not stating the true and correct fact before the writ court had the possibility to cause miscarriage of justice. The learned Single Judge has issued directions upon the Deputy Commissioner and District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra to reconsider the case in the light of the observations made in the order of the review and thus, learned single Judge was of the firm view that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any such error warranting review. Learned Single Judge also taken into account that the action of the deponent Jamini Kant prima facie amounts to making false statement on the oath and also an act of criminal contempt of this Court which may have caused miscarriage of justice. Learned Single Judge had also issued notice to the deponent of counter affidavit filed on 16th July 2010 in W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008. Mr. Jamni Kant, the then Executive Magistrate, Chatra now posted as Executive Magistrate Khunti to show as to why he be not prosecuted for making false statement on oath and why proceeding for criminal contempt of this Court be not initiated against him. Mr. Jamni Kant, the then Executive Magistrate, Chatra now posted as Executive Magistrate Khunti to show as to why he be not prosecuted for making false statement on oath and why proceeding for criminal contempt of this Court be not initiated against him. Learned single Judge after having detailed view of the matter and taken into account all the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that no case of review made out by the appellant and thus review petition has been dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17th March, 2017 passed in review petition being Review Petition No. 15 of 2014, the appellant moved before this Court in letters patent appeal, but in the present appeal the appellant has not challenged the order dated 05.20.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008. 10. We are conscious of the fact that we are examining the judgment of the review in this Letters Patent Appeal in which we do not find any apparent error on the record. We are in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge. No other ground for review was made out before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we cannot take a view contrary to what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the letters patent appeal is dismissed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.