ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the portion of Gyapank No.889/District Establishment, Madhubani dated 11.06.2018 (annexed as Annexure-3) relating to the petitioner whereby the petition dated 16.01.2017 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was working as a Jeep Driver, Western Koshi Canal Division, Rajnagar and died on 26.07.2017 during his service period. The wife of the deceased employee requested the respondent to appoint his eldest son (petitioner) on compassionate ground. Counsel submits that the petitioner has passed I.S.C. examination from Bihar Intermediate Council in the year 1995 securing 1st Division and completed his graduation in B.A. from L.N. Mithila University. The petitioner has also completed Diploma course in Computer Application. Counsel further submits that the other sons and daughters of the deceased employee had also given their consent for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in prescribed format. Counsel submits that District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Madhubani in its meeting held on 21.05.2018 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that one of the brother of the petitioner namely Umesh Ram is a contractual Teacher in the State of Bihar and therefore, in the light of the notification issued vide Gyapank No.889/District Establishment, dated 11.06.2018, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Counsel also submits that in the said rejection order, it has been categorically acknowledged by the authorities that the said contractual teacher is not in contact with the family in any manner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relying on the said circular in which the reference of two Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos.6668 of 2003 with 7044 of 2003, it has been said that whether the person living together or not, but if employed, their case shall not be considered for compassionate appointment. Counsel further submits that in this regard, Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Niraj Kumar Mallick, Sandip Chauhan and Vijay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar through Secretary Rural Works Department & Ors. reported in 2018(2) PLJR 951 hold that where it has been found that the employment of the other sibling is of such a nature that it is not generating resources so as to make him able to provide both ends meet for sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents of the deceased Government employee in that case, his case for compassionate appointment ought to be considered. Counsel further submits that here in the remark column, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee has itself acknowledged that one of the son of the deceased employee is in service, but not keeping any relation with the deceased family and that aspect has not been considered at all.

The authorities may be directed to consider that aspect which they themselves acknowledged in the rejection part of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the light of Hon’ble Full Bench decision of this Court referred above.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the writ petition is not maintainable at all as the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee is completely in accordance with law and circular which is based on two different decisions of this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the State concludes his argument submitting that even after Full Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court, there are other decisions come by Hon’ble Supreme Court which restricts the backdoor entry in any manner.

6. Upon hearing the parties and going through the documents, this Court specifically