Bedanshu Bardhan v. The State Of Bihar

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that CWJC No. 4339 of 2010 was filed aggrieved by appointment on Class IV contrary to the recommendation for Class III post alleging discrimination. Liberty was granted to represent on 21.4.2012. The petitioner filed a representation demonstrating arbitrariness and discrimination vis a vis one Sri Bharat Bhushan who was appointed on a Class III post. It has wrongly been rejected on 4.5.2012. The petitioner is entitled to be appointed on a Class III post both on grounds of the recommendation and discrimination. Patna High Court CWJC No.14396 of 2012 (2) dt.04-09-2012 2 Counsel for the State submits that the impugned order requires no interference as the petitioner does not have any vested right to claim compassionate appointment on a Class III post. Pursuant to the policy decision dated 9.9.2008 with regard to compassionate appointment as a Panchayat Teacher/Block Teacher/Town Teacher to wards of a Teacher deceased in harness the petitioner if he so desires may approach the concerned Appointing Unit in accordance with law as laid down in 2010 (3) PLJR 294 (State of Bihar v. Rajiv Ran Vijay Kumar) (FB) and if he fulfils the requirements he may be considered for the same. The mother of the petitioner was deceased in harness as Teacher on 16.12.2007. A claim for compassionate appointment shall have to be considered in accordance with the law as it stood on the date of death. The petitioner rightly came to be considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and was recommended for compassionate appointment. The recommendation did not tantamount to a vested right for appointment on a Class III post. It had to remain dependant on the needs of the respondents and availability of vacancies. The object of compassionate appointment was to relieve the petitioner from penury and not to cater to his desire for appointment on a Class III or Class IV post. Whatever be the post, the salary received relieved him from penury. The question of discrimination arises amongst equals and not unequals. The representation of the petitioner itself demonstrates that while he was appointed in Lakhisarai, Sri Bharat Bhushan has been appointed in Begusarai. It stands to reason that the needs of the respondents and the vacancies could have been different at the two places. The representation is also silent with regard to the respective qualifications. The petitioner came to be recommended on 1.9.2008. The appointment was made on 12.10.2009. The order for appointment itself Patna High Court CWJC No.14396 of 2012 (2) dt.04-09-2012 3 stated that there was a ban on appointment on Class III by letter no. 286 dated 30.7.2009. The appointment of Sri Bharat Bhushan is stated to have been made after 1.2.2010. No material has been placed by the petitioner if the ban was subsisting or had been lifted before the latter date. The that a person recommended for compassionate appointment has no vested right to demand appointment on a Class III post stands considered in (1994) 6 SCC 560 (State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh) holding at paragraph 8 as follows:- “8. Admittedly the respondent's father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, “endless compassion”…………..” it would a The matter came to be considered again in 1996(2) PLJR (SC) 199 (State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha). The directions given to consider appointment on a Class III post contrary to the appointment provided on Class IV was set aside, holding that a person appointed on compassionate ground had no such rights. In (2007) 6 SCC 162 (I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi) the respondent was recommended for compassionate appointment as a Constable but was appointed as Peon which he joined. Subsequently he questioned the same before the Service Tribunal which directed him to be appointed on a Class III post. Setting aside the order it was held at paragraphs 7, 11 and 12 as follows:- “7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in Patna High Court CWJC No.14396 of 2012 (2) dt.04-09-2012 4 terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.

11. The respondent, thus, could be offered an appointment only to the post for which he was suitable.

12. Furthermore, the respondent accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor. A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the petitioner came within the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is vested with such a power.” The petitioner joined on 12.10.2009 without demur. He raised protest one year later on 25.1.2010. He cannot have the benefit of the appointment and yet question the same. The Court therefore finds no merit in the claim of the petitioner. The application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) Snkumar/-