The central legal point established in the judgment is that eligibility for compassionate appointment is contingent on fulfilling the criteria set out in the Compassionate Appointment Act, and the appointee must support the deceased employee's family, not seek appointment as a matter of succession.

Aftab Alam, J.

1. The hunger of Government employment coupled with the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds gives rise to strange and sad cases. Here is one such case in which two own sisters are vying with each other for appointment following the death of their father and they have made this Court the battle ground for their fight.

2. One Janardan Pandey died on 30.7.1990 while working as an Assistant teacher in Mangal Seminary Inter College, Motihari. The writ petitioner-appellant being one of the daughters of the deceased made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 31.8.1993 the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, East Champaran recommended her for appointment as Assistant teacher in an elementary school. It later transpired that she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment as an Assistant teacher as she had less than 45% marks in the matriculation examination. This gave rise to the first round of litigation between the writ petitioner on the one side and the Government authorities on the other. This issue was concluded by an order, dated 8.8.1995 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4458 of 1995 filed at her instance. By that order this Court held that even on compassionate grouds one could be appointed only against a post for which one possessed the requisite qualifications. It is noted above that the petitioner did not have the minimum qualification for appointment as an Assistant teacher in a primary school.

3. The writ petitioner-appellant was then appointed on the post of Clerk by an order issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division on 26.12.1996. The petitioner went to join on 30.12.1996 but she was not allowed to join the post. It now appears that respondent no. 7, Kumari Chandana Pandey, the sister of the appellant who was trying for her own appointment under the scheme of harness made a complaint before the authorities that her elder sister, that is, the writ petitioner-appellant was married and was, therefore, excluded from the scheme of compassionate appointment. On verification the authorities presumably found the allegation to be true and hence, disallowed the writ petitioner-appellant to join the post pursuant to the order issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education.

4. At that stage, the petitioner came to this Court for the second time in C.W.J.C. No. 8419 of 1997. It is significant to note here that neither in the first writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4458 of 1995) nor in the second writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8419 of 1997), her sister, Kumari Chandna Pandey was impleaded as a party respondent. It is also to be noted that in her writ petition, the writ petitioner-appellant simply stated her own side of the story and told the Court that despite the letter of appointment issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 26.12.1996 she was not being allowed to join and she was not being paid her salary for the post of Clerk. She accordingly prayed for a direction to the concerned authorities to pay her salary from 30.12.1996. In the second writ petition there was no mention of the first writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and it was conveniently certified in the petition that she had not moved this Court earlier "for the reliefs as sought for in the present application".

5. In that case the respondent authorities filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the respondent authorities stated that the letter of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, dated 26.12.1996 appointing the writ petitioner-appellant to the post of Clerk was later cancelled on the basis of a letter, dated 27.3.1998 issued by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari on the grounds that (i) the Regional Deputy Director of Education was not competent to issue the appointment letter and (ii) the appointment was obtained by the petitioner by suppression of material facts inasmuch as she was a married person and was, ther