Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 1185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, VIKASH JAIN, JJ.
ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE DHANESHWAR SINHA R/O VILLAGE- HICHAN BIGHA, P.O.- HICHAN BIGHA, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR), AT PRESENT POSTED AS PEON IN UCHYA VIDAYALAYA, HASPURA, DAUDNAGAR, AURANGABAD (BIHAR) – Appellants.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.1228 of 2012
Decided On : 7.9.2012
For the Appellants : Mr. Ramchandra Bharti.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Roy. Arun Kumar.
Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is offered only to meet the grave exigency of the situation arising from the death of a bread earner, and is an exception to the Constitutional mandate of employment based on merit.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Class IV Post - The court dismissed the appeal regarding the appellant's request for re-appointment on a higher post on the ground of compassion, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is offered only to meet the grave exigency of the situation arising from the death of a bread earner. Such appointments are an exception to the Constitutional mandate that employment under the State must be given only on the basis of merit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought re-appointment on a higher post on compassionate grounds after accepting appointment on a Class IV post following the death of his father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is offered only to meet the grave exigency of the situation arising from the death of a bread earner.
Issues: The issue revolved around the appellant's request for re-appointment on a higher post on compassionate grounds and the court's interpretation of compassionate appointment as an exception to the Constitutional mandate of employment based on merit.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is offered only to meet the grave exigency of the situation arising from the death of a bread earner. Such appointments are an exception to the Constitutional mandate that employment under the State must be given only on the basis of merit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal dated 22.12.2011 whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC No. 14975 of 2007 has been dismissed.
2. On account of death of his father in harness in the year 2001, the appellant was recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds against a Class IV post. He accepted the appointment and is in service since 18.6.2004.
3. Encouraged by some wrong practices in the District of Aurangabad whereunder persons recommended for Class IV posts were subsequently recommended for Class III posts, the appellant preferred writ petition in the year 2007 for a direction to the concerned Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to consider and appoint the appellant on any Class III post.
4. It is well settled in law that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and in any case when appointment has been offered and accepted by a person in need of immediate help, the law does not permit re-appointment on a higher post on the ground of compassion. Wrong practices in a Collectorate cannot persuade this Court to ignore the vital fact that compassionate appointment is offered only to meet grave exigency of the situation arising on account of death of a bread earner. Such appointments are an exception to the Constitutional mandate that employment under the State must be given only on the basis of merit.
5. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
