IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1368 of 2006 RAJESHWAR RAVIDAS, son of late Nathuni Ram, resident of village-Nauranga, P.S.Mufasil,District Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon –cum-Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health, Gaya. 4. The Medical Officer, Incharge, Primary Health Centre,Manpur, Gaya. 5. The District Compassionate Committee, Gaya, through the District Magistrate. 6. The District Magistrate, Gaya 7. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 8. Lalan Ravidas, son of late Nathuni Ram With CWJC No.5094 of 2006 LALAN RAVIDAS, son of late Nathuni Ram, resident of village Navranga, P.S. Mufassil, District-Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner- cum- Secretary, Health Department, having his office in Vikas Bhawan, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. 2. The District Magistrate-cum- District Collector-cum- Chairman of Compassionate Committee, Gaya, District- Gaya. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gaya, District- Gaya. 4. The Medical Officer, Incharge Primary Health Centre, Manpur, Gaya. --- In C.W.J.C. No.1368/2006 For the Petitioner:-Mr.Nand Prasad Sinha,Advocate For the State: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar,G.P.XVI In C.W.J.C. No.5094/2006 For the petitioner: Mr. Virendra Prasad,Advocate For the State: Mr. Narendra Kumar,J.C. to G.P.XI --- 6. 6.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The two writ applications are directed against the same order dated 27.12.2005, by which both the applications of the petitioners for compassionate appointment on account of death of their father, Nathuni Ram, on 25.1.2003 while he was working as class IV employee in the State Government were rejected and accordingly, they are being 2 disposed of by this common order. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners in the two writ petitions died on 25.1.2003 while he was in Government service and, thereafter, both of them had made separate application for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner, Rajeshwar Ravidas, claims to be the elder brother whereas the petitioner, Lalan Ravidas, is the younger brother. The petitioner, Rajeshwar Ravidas, claims that he has the right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sajjad Hussain V. The State of Bihar & Ors. : 2005 (2) PLJR 183, in paragraph No.4 of which it has been laid down as follows: ”4. In the instant case, apart from the claim being belated, the subsequent conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that he gave a go by to the complaint in relation to the 1992 decision specifically when he permitted the application of his younger brother to be considered and for that filed an affidavit also. It must be kept in mind that when an application for compassionate appointment is to be considered the first son will get the first priority of having his application considered first, the second son before the third son and third son before the fourth son. The claim of third son is not entertainable until it is found that the second son is unfit. By issuing a no objection to the consideration of the application of the third son after rejection of his application, may be on a non-tenable ground, the petitioner clearly gave a go by to his right to be considered for a compassionate appointment” The petitioner, Lalan Ravidas, on the other hand, claims on the basis of an agreement entered on 20.10.2003, which is in the nature of Will of his father in which he had stated that after his death his younger son, Lalan Ravidas would be given the appointment on compassionate ground and not other two sons. The cases of aforesaid two petitioners were considered in the meeting of the District Compassionate Committee on 27.12.2005 3 and after considering the fact that the two petitioners had produced School Leaving Certificates of having studied in class IX the two petitioners were directed to write an application for being granted four days casual leave. It is stated in the proceedings that the petitioner, Lalan Ravidas failed to right any application whereas the application written by the petitioner, Rajeshwar Ravidas, is not legible. For the said reasons, it was concluded that both the applicants are not class Eight pass and their applications were rejected. This Court directed the learned Govt. Pleader No XVI to seek instructions and inform this Court as to whether such a procedure of judging a person as class Eight pass or not is permissible or is being followed in the matter of appointment to class IV post. It is submitted by learned State Counsel on instructions that there is no such practice of making query or asking the candidate to write an application for judging the veracity of the School Leaving Certificate as to whether he is Class VIII pass or not. Therefore, so far as the petitioners being class VIII pass is concerned, the procedure adopted by the District Compassionate Committee is contrary to the norms fixed by the State Government in the matter of appointment for the purpose of judging as to whether the candidate has passed Class VIII or not. The decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting on 27.12.2005, so far as it relates to the two petitioners, is accordingly quashed and the matter is remanded to the District Compassionate Committee to consider the cases of the two 4 petitioners afresh in accordance with the procedure prescribed and in the light of the decision of this Court. Let the final decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid directions. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)