Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is granted to meet exigency created because of the death of the bread earner. The appointment must be done under the scheme framed by the employer.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

2. Petitioner seeks review of the judgment/order dated 5th February, 2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2595 of 2008 which reads as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner's father died on 02.07.2005 while working as Teacher in the district of Chatra under the respondent-Government of Jharkhand.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and according to him, his name was recommended for Grade-III post in the meeting of the compassionate committee held on 30.05.2006. However, he has been appointed on Grade-IV post in the Ganga Smarak High School Gidhaure Block Gidhaure, district-Chatra vide appointment letter dated 01.06.2007, Annexure-2. He claims to be duly qualified having degree of Master in Arts and as such, it is stated that in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents have discriminated with the petitioner as one Naveen Kant Sinha was also recommended and appointed in Grade-III post. Similarly one Anuradha Devi a Matric passed candidate was also appointed in Grade-III post pursuant to the decision of the compassionate committee held on 16.10.2004. According to the petitioner, five persons have been appointed in Grade-III post, who were having lesser qualification as stated in para-11 of the writ petition. Therefore, he has approached this Court in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) JCR 30 (jhr) : 2012 (1) JLJR 237. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the discriminatory approach of the respondents have been denounced and the respondents were directed to consider the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner on Class-III post. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter-affidavit. It has been stated on their part that the petitioner was recommended for Grade-III post by the Compassionate Committee on 30.05.2006. However, letter no. 1078 dated 27.04.2005 was brought to the notice of the Committee, which was issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi. According to the said letter appointment on Grade-III post could not be made by the District Appointment Committee. The aforesaid error was amended in the subsequent meeting of the Committee held on 22.09.2006. In respect of the statement made in so far as Naveen Kant Sinha is concerned, he was recommended in Grade-III post due to inadvertence and typing mistake, which was corrected in the subsequent meeting of the Compassionate Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on 22.09.2006 as being in Grade-IV. In so far as appointment of Anuradha Devi is concerned, it has been stated that the same was done according to the letter no. 581 dated 25.02.2005 issued by the Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. The action of the respondents is, therefore, not arbitrary or discriminatory. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner having been appointed on Grade-IV on compassionate ground and accepted, however, cannot claim appointment on any particular post as a matter of right.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through relevant materials available on record. The issue relating to compassionate appointment has been considered and settled in several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the recent judgment in the case of State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi reported in JT 2013(11) SC 408, these principles have been once again reiterated. It has been held as under:-

“10. Before we proceed to appreciate the entitlement of the respondent for a particular post on compassionate basis, we think it necessary to refer to certain pronouncements in the field pertaining to compassionate appointment itself. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [JT 1994 (3