IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18889 of 2011 1. Sanjay Mandal Son of Late Amirak Rawat Resident of Village-Kaniyari, Post Office-Dhira, P.S.-Halsi, District-Lakhisarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai. 5. The Dpeuty Collector, Establishment, Lakhisarai. 6. The Officer Superintendent, Collectorate, Lakhisarai. 7. The Circle Officer, Halsi Circle, District-Lakhisarai. 8. The Officer-In-Charge, Halsi Police Station, District-Lakhisarai. ----------- 2. 25.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to G.P. 20 for the respondents. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order/decision taken in the meeting dated 24.08.2011 by the District Compassionate Committee, Lakhisarai by which the petitioner’s claim for appointment as Chowkidar on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that he was treated as uneducated only on the ground that he had put up his thumb impression on the application instead of signing the application form and the affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner fulfills the minimum criteria and was standard 8 pass but only on this untenable ground of being uneducated his case has been rejected. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the fact that the Committee was aware that the petitioner is standard 8 2 pass, if at all it was felt that the petitioner should have signed instead of putting his thumb impression, then at least an opportunity ought to have been given to him to do the same, but without giving such opportunity the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and requires interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement made in Para-8 of the writ petition in which it is stated that in the case of another person his application was sent to the Circle Office at Halasi for necessary correction but in the case of petitioner even a mere formality of asking him to go and put his signature at the relevant places was not resorted to and thus the respondents have also discriminated against the petitioner in the matter of such consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. When the District Compassionate Committee itself has admitted that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and was standard 8 pass then rejecting his claim merely because he has put his thumb impression and not signed on the application and the affidavit is untenable. If, at all, the Committee was genuinely 3 apprehensive that the petitioner should be treated uneducated then at least one opportunity was required to be given to him to show that the petitioner could sign on the concerned part as well as the affidavit and his case should not have been rejected outright on this ground. In view of the aforesaid, the decision taken with regard to the petitioner in the meeting dated 24.08.2011 by the District Compassionate Committee, Lakhisarai by which the petitioner’s claim for appointment as Chowkidar on compassionate ground has been rejected is set aside. The District Compassionate Committee, Lakhisarai, shall take a fresh decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon respondent No. 2. The respondents shall be obliged to give an opportunity to the petitioner to meet any of the objections which may be there in such consideration but such objections should be strictly as per the requirement of law and not imaginary. The writ petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid directions. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)