IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments are not a matter of right and depend on the availability of vacancies; once an appointment is accepted, further claims for higher positions are not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner, for his appointment in Class-III post on compassionate ground, has been denied.

Facts:

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:

The petitioner/appellant after death of her father filed representation for compassionate appointment and committee found that petitioner has required qualification for Class-III post but Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Latehar disclosed before the committee that Class-III post is not available hence committee recommended in Class IV post and petitioner/appellant appointed on Class-IV post though she has required qualification for Class-III post.

When the Class-III post was available, the petitioner appellant filed her representation to change Class-IV post to Class-III.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018 which has been dismissed against which the present appeal has been filed.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the father of the petitioner died in harness. The writ petitioner has made application for consideration of her appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was considered and she has been appointed in Class-IV post. The petitioner has accepted the appointment and joined her duty. The petitioner subsequent to the joining has made representation that she ought to have been appointed in Class III post since she was eligible during the relevant time to hold the Class III post. The aforesaid claim has not been considered even in spite of filing of the representation. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018 was filed wherein the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the fact that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same can only be given for the purpose of sustenance of the dependents of the deceased employee, on account of death in harness of the concerned public servant.

4. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration that during the relevant time, there was no vacancy in Class III post, as per the ground taken by the State in the counter affidavit.

5. The learned Single Judge, based upon the aforesaid ground, distinguishing the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 195 and The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar, reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 62, has dismissed the writ petition against which the present appeal has been filed.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner:

6. Mr. Rabindra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, in assailing the impugned judgment, has taken the following grounds :

(i) The writ petitioner even though was eligible to hold the post of Class III, but in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner, the writ petitioner was appointed in Class IV post. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner was having no option but to accept the offer of appointment, considering the financial crisis which the entire family, the dependents, of the deceased employee was facing.

(ii) The ground has been raised that the writ petitioner was eligible to hold the post of Class III but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, such claim has been denied and in spite of consideration of the case for appointment in Class III, the writ petitioner was appointed in Class IV post.

(iii) The learned Single Judge without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in right perspective, has dismissed the writ petition, therefore, the present appeal.

Arguments on behalf of th