JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARTHY, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief:

“1. That the present petition is being preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions to concern authorities for consideration and his appointment against cadre/post in class-3 instead to class-4 by virtue of death to his father Late Rajnandan Prasad as an employee of corporation in light of eligibility suitability and qualification on basis of facts and for other necessary relief/reliefs to the basis of facts and circumstances of case enumerated and stated hereinafter.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father who was working in the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation died in harness on 4.9.1997.

4. The petitioner filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground, however the financial condition of the Corporation being very poor, no appointments were being made. It was only in the year 2014 that on the financial condition of the Corporation improving that a committee headed by the Chief Engineer of the Corporation was constituted to review the applications pending for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. By office order no. 365 of 2015 dated 2.12.2015, 17 applicants including the petitioner herein were appointed on compassionate ground as a Class-IV employee on the post of orderly/peon.

6. The petitioner joined his duties and started discharging the same.

7. It is subsequent to his having joined duties in the above capacity on the Class-IV post that the petitioner has now moved this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider his appointment against a Class-III post as the petitioner is a Ph.D. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner holding the Ph.D. degree on the date of his application for compassionate appointment, in view of the officer order no. 109 of 2015 dated 30.1.2015, the petitioner should have been appointed on Class-III post instead of Class-IV.

8. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the employee i.e. the father of the petitioner having died in harness on 4.9.1997, the application of the petitioner came to be filed only in the year 2009 and because of the poor financial condition of the Corporation he was appointed in the year 2015. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no right to be appointed on a particular post or class of post and he also has no right for appointment on a higher post.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. The facts not in dispute are that the father of the petitioner who was working as an employee in the Corporation having died on 4.9.1997, the petitioner filed an application for appointment in the year 2009. As a result of the poor financial condition of the Corporation, no appointments on compassionate ground was made. On the condition of the Corporation improving, a committee constituted under the chairmanship of the Chief Engineer considered the applications which were pending for appointment on compassionate ground and proceeded to appoint 17 persons including the petitioner herein on 2.12.2015 on a Class-IV post of orderly/peon.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the said post and started working thereon and came to file the instant writ application in the year 2017 for a direction to the respondents to consider his appointment against Class-III post instead of Class-IV.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Town Panchayat and Ors. vs. M. Jayabal and Anr.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2794 held as follows:

“CLAIM FOR HIGHER POST

8. It is not in dispute that after the death of the employees in service, the dependent family members were offered appointment to a post for which an application was made by them. They had joined on that post without raising any objection. Meaning thereby, the financial cris