A circular extending preference to the dependents of government servants who died in harness for appointments in Class III and Class IV posts is not contrary to Art.16(1) and (2) read with Art.14 of the Constitution of India if it is not a bald preference to the dependents of the deceased employees but is confined to the selection of one to compensate the loss by giving employment to him, it is not a general concession to all the dependents of the deceased employees but is confined to those who fall in an income group below Rs. 6,000.00 per year and lost their bread earner, and it does not violate any other law.

P.S.MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioners herein have prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their respective cases for appointment on the posts of Assistant Teachers in elementary schools on preference over other candidates on the ground that they are children of the employees of the respondent-State, who died in harness. They have disclosed their respective qualifications and alleged that they have to cater their family consisting of several members including minors and old ones which they are not able to provide with their gross income from all sources falling below Rs. 6,000/ - per annum. They have pointed out that their fathers, who were Assistant Teachers and Headmasters in the elementary schools, died, except petitioner No. 9 whose mother was in Government service as a lady teacher, who died in harness.

2. A Government resolution contained in memo No. 12754 dated 12/07/1977 was circulated to all concerned conveying that it had been decided to give preference for the appointments in Class III and Class IV posts in different services of the State Government on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the Government servants who died in harness. The resolution spelt out the dependants who could be given such preference as wife, sons and unmarried daughters of the servants dying in harness and also that the Government had decided to give relaxation in upper age limit to such persons who qualified in this category. That the said Government resolution has held the field and has been reiterated by subsequent orders is not in dispute.

3. The petitioners have stated that as a follow up, since they all belonged to the category of the dependents of the Government servants who died in harness, a Committee consisting of the District Magistrate, District Development Officer and others entertained their applications and considered their cases for such appointments. The Committee recommended their names for appointments as Assistant Teachers in the elementary schools as their parents were servants in the Education Department. The selection, however, received a set back and the petitioners could not be appointed because the Director, Primary Education, took the stand that no untrained teacher could be appointed even on compassionate grounds. They have asserted that the Director, Primary Educations letter dated 15-3-1988 (Annexure-2) has no application to the appointments on compassionate grounds and that the basic qualification having been satisfied, the petitioners have to be appointed as others have been appointed in preference to other candidates for the reason that their parent were servants of the State Government and died in harness.

4. The only return on the record is one filed by respondent No. 4. He has maintained that-

(a) The Governments decision to give preference to the dependents of the Government servants, who died in harness has got no binding effect; (b) The petitioners names were returned as they did not fulfil the qualifications of eligibility for appointment as teachers in elementary schools; and (c) They may be appointed in Class III Class IV posts in any service of the State of Bihar in accordance with their respective qualifications but not as teachers in the elementary schools.

5. Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India enjoin upon the State that it shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India, shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them and that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to, employment or appointment to any office under the State. There are two exceptions to the rule of equality in Art.15, one for making any special provisions for women or children and the other for making any special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the