An individual appointed on a compassionate basis cannot claim an additional compassionate appointment for a different role after acceptance of the initial position.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 10-12-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order under memo No. 1645 dated 07/10/2021 and order vide memo No. 127 dated 08/10/2021, by which respondent No. 3 rejected his own order dated 12.05.2015 by letter No. 1748 through which petitioner demoted from the post of Forest Guard to post of Chowkidar.

ii. For issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to adhere to their own correspondence particularly office order No.203 and letter No. 1921 dated 09.05.2020, whereby the petitioner has been appointed/regularised on the post of Forest Guard, based on the recommendation of Conservator of Forest, Gaya Circle, Gaya vide letter No. 733, dated 12.07.2019 with all due pecuniary benefits.

iii. For issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to adhere to their own correspondence particularly letter No. 2598 dated 10.08.2002, whereby the authorities of the Forest Department were directed to make appointment of recommended candidates under compassionate category on the post of Forest Guard only.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is admitted that the petitioner had earlier joined the post of Chowkidar by Compassionate Committee, but at the department level, it has been considered that he ought be appointed on the post of Forest Guard (ouj{kh) and for that he had participated in the process of joining on the same.

4. Counsel further submits that the said letter No.1748 dated 12.05.2015 and letter dated 08.10.2021 have been set aside by the respondent authorities without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide Annexures- 7 & 19 respectively. He further submits that both letters has directly affected the petitioner and no opportunity was granted to him prior to issuance of letter/ passing the order and in this way, there is gross violation of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, raised preliminary objection and submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the writ Bench, when petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2400 of 2020 in which vide order dated 25.02.2020, it has been categorically held which states as follows:-

“Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

Petitioner's father passed away on

2.3.2014 while working as Forest Guard. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 9.1.2015 showed compassion to the petitioner and recommended his appointment on Class IV post in the office of Conservator of Forest, Gaya Circle. The petitioner thereafter was appointed as Chaukidar on 7.2.2015 by office order no. 13 issued by respondent No. 5. Petitioner does not appear to be satisfied with grant of compassionate appointment as Chaukidar.

He has now approached this Court on the basis of some recommendation made by District Forest Officer for his compassionate appointment as a Forest Guard. Reliance is specifically placed on Annexure 16 dated 10.8.2012 issued by Environment and Forest Department to submit that the recommendation made in petitioner's favour was required to be expeditiously taken to its logical conclusion.

Bare perusal of Annexure 16 dated

10.8.2012 shows that the letter is expressing anguish over pendency of the claim for compassionate appointment. The direction has been issued so that compassionate appointment claims should not be kept inordinately