Individuals are not ineligible for compassionate appointments simply because they have other family members who are government employees.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9862 of 2021

======================================================

Md Sanaullah S/o Md. Habibullah Resident of Ward No.5, Village- Andauli,

P.S.- Kishanpur, Dist- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Food and

Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Supaul.

3.

The District Supply Officer, Supaul.

4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul.

5.

The Block Supply Officer cum Block Development Officer, Kishanpur,

Dist- Supaul.

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Kumar Goutam

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Arvind Ujjawal ( Sc4 )

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH

SHARMA

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

2

03-01-2022

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

(I) For quashing the order dated 21.01.2020

passed by District Collector Supaul, in supply

Appeal No.10/2019 contained in annexure 5 to this

writ application, whereby the learned District

Collector Supaul affirm the order passed in Memo

No.414-2 dated 25.03.2019 by the respondent

no.4 the Sub-divisional Officer, Supaul where

under the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer

Supaul has cancelled the license no.02/2018 on

the ground that his brother is on the post of

Government Teacher, issued to the petitioner on

compassionate ground after death of his father.

(ii) For the direction to restore the license

Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2021(2) dt.03-01-2022

2/3

no.02/2018 in favour of the petitioner.

After the matter was heard for some time, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, under instructions,

states that petitioner may be permitted to prefer a revision

against the impugned order before the Revisional Authority.

Permission granted.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if

such a revision is preferred within a period of four weeks from

today, the issue of limitation, if any, shall neither be raised nor

allowed to come in the way of adjudication of the revision on

merits.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

As such, petition stands disposed of in the

following mutually agreeable terms:-

(a) Petitioner is permitted to prefer a revision

within a period of four weeks from today.

(b) in the event of revision being preferred within a

period of four weeks from today, the issue of

limitation shall not come in the way of

adjudication of the revision on merits;

(c) Opportunity shall be granted to the parties to

place on record all essential documents and

materials , if so required and desired;

(d) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes

to fully cooperate and not take unnecessary

adjournment;

(e) The Revisional Authority shall decide the

revision on merits, in compliance of the principles

of natural justice;

Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2021(2) dt.03-01-2022

3/3

(f) The Revisional Authority shall pass a reasoned

and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of filing of the revision;

(g) copy of the reasoned and speaking order

passed by the Revisional Authority shall be

supplied to the parties.

(h) Equally, liberty reserved to the parties to take

recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise

available in accordance with law;

(I) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner

takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise

available in law, before the appropriate forum, the

same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law

and with reasonable dispatch;

(j) We have not expressed any opinion on merits

and all issues are left open;

(k) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge

the order before the appropriate f