JUDGMENT

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. - Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned Advocate on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Piyush Lall, learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who are the contesting respondents.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking a direction to the contesting respondents to appoint him on the post of 'Typist' on compassionate ground.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after death of his father, who was working as a typist in the Civil Court, Siwan, he made an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2012-2013. The claim of the petitioner was enquired into and a report vide Letter No. 273 dated 07.06.2011 (annexed with the writ application) was submitted by the Circle Officer, Sonpur (Saran) confirming the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.

4. It is further pleaded that the Judge Incharge (Administration) Civil Court, Saran examined the application submitted by the petitioner and vide letter dated 10.12.2014, the Judge Incharge (Administration) Civil Court, Siwan directed the petitioner to appear in the written examination held on 13.12.2014.

5. It is stated that the petitioner appeared in the said examination, he was declared pass and then a date for interview was also fixed. The petitioner appeared in the interview and he was again declared pass but for a long time when the petitioner did not hear anything about his appointment, he raised a grievance by submitting an application (Annexure-12) before Respondent No. 4.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that his application before Respondent No. 4 was unable to draw the attention of the authorities/respondents, therefore, the mother of the petitioner applied for certain information under Right to Information Act and at this stage, the Public Information Officer (Civil)-cum- Sub Judge I, Civil Court, Siwan supplied information, as contained in Annexure13 series, dated 10.10.2017. According to the information furnished to the mother of this petitioner, the name of this petitioner was recommended/forwarded for purpose of appointment pursuant to the decision taken by the competent committee in the meeting held on 27.05.2015. The communication as contained in letter no. 323 dated 04.06.2015 was forwarded to the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna. Petitioner has enclosed Annexures with the writ application in support of his statements.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that from the counter affidavit filed before this Court, now it appears that a policy decision was taken by the respondent High Court whereunder it was resolved that total strength of compassionate appointment would not exceed 3% of the sanctioned strength of the cadre in which such appointment is being considered. The decision of the Court was communicated to all Judgeships of the State vide letter no. 373-408 dated 04.01.2016 of the Court. A copy of the said communication is on record (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit).

8. Learned senior counsel has further pointed out that subsequently the policy decision was modified to the effect that the limit of 3% has been increased to 5% subject to the condition that compassionate appointment shall only be made on Class IV posts. The subsequent communication in this regard is letter no. 1211-47 dated 10.01.2017, as contained in Annexure- 'C' to the counter affidavit.

9. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that at the time of the recommendation of the name of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground, the policy decision restricting the appointment on compassionate ground to the extent of 3% of the sanctioned strength was not in existence, therefore, the said policy decision cannot come in the way of petitioner for consideration of his name for compassionate appointment.

10. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered in LPA No. 239