JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. - This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No.3 for the State of Bihar.

3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of an order/decision of Patna District Compassionate Appointment Committee, whereby petitioner's application for his appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected as time barred and has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 08.04.2011 issued under the signature of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. It is the petitioner's case that no copy of the said decision of the Patna District Compassionate Appointment Committee or the order of the Deputy Collector addressed to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, which is the basis for issuance of letter dated 05.04.2011 is available with the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment on the basis of representation dated 03.03.2016. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought for a direction to appoint petitioner's mother (Respondent No. 5), as indicated in the letter dated 08.04.2011 and other letters issued by the respondent; in case the Court is not inclined to allow the relief relating to petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground.

4. This is to be noted at this stage itself that this writ application was filed on 07.04.2018. The petitioner's case as disclosed in the writ petition is that his father was a constable in Patna District Police Force who died while working as constable on 07.07.1990. The widow of the deceased employee, viz, petitioner's mother made an application in the year 1991 for her appointment on compassionate basis. As no action was taken on her application, the petitioner's mother made an application on 08.07.2004 for appointment of her son (the petitioner), on compassionate basis, in her place. It has been stated that thereafter certain papers and documents were demanded by the respondents for considering the request for appointment on compassionate ground. The matter, however, remained pending for considerable period of time and finally by the impugned communication dated 05.04.2011, the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected as time barred.

5. It is the petitioner's case that a request for appointment on compassionate basis made by her mother within time was allowed to remain pending for years together without any valid justification. It is, accordingly, the petitioner's case that the action of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground as time barred is wholly arbitrary and illegal, which requires interference by this Court, exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents stating therein that the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate basis was rightly rejected as, in terms of the scheme for appointment on compassionate basis, a dependent of a deceased employee can apply for such appointment within five years of the death of the employee. It has been stated specifically that after the death of the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner had not submitted any application in the prescribed performa with affidavit and other documents, for sending them to the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee for consideration. She, however, filed an affidavit in the year 2004 before the Department mentioning therein that at the time of death of her husband, both her sons were immature, as a result of which, she could not get advantage for appointment on compassionate basis and now since her elder son, viz, the petitioner is aged 19 years, in her place, the petitioner should be appointed on compas