IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7860 of 2002 JHUNNA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, son of late Surendra Prasad Srivastava, resident of village and P.O. Nawada, P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj at present posted as a peon in G.M.High School, Barhariya, P.S. Barhariya, District Gopalganj … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan 3. The District Education Officer, Siwan 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan … Respondents ----------- 4. 14.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State with regard to the following prayer: “This writ application is for an appropriate writ, order, direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in Class three post on the basis of compassionate ground considering away the requisite qualification of the petitioner which has not been considered and the petitioner has have appointed on class IV post on compassionate ground although class three post was available and similarly situated persons have been appointed on Class three post by the respondents treating away discrimination with the petitioner.” this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ application is not 2 maintainable simply on the ground that for the same relief the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 12071/2001 which after some argument was permitted to be withdrawn without any liberty for moving this Court again for the same cause of action. Additionally this Court would find that the sole plank of the petitioner for sustaining his claim of appointment on compassionate ground on a Class III post is based on a plea of discrimination but then such plea of discrimination is wholly vague, inasmuch as either in paragraph 11 or in paragraph 17 not a single name has been mentioned with whom the petitioner claims to be discriminated. It is well settled that a plea of discrimination is a question of fact and cannot be gone into in absence of details. Finally the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right to be enforced, inasmuch as whatever vacancy was available was offered to the petitioner and he had accepted the same and thereafter once he has been working on a Class IV post he 3 cannot again expect another compassion for his being appointed on a Class III post. Thus, even on merit the petitioner has hardly any case and in fact that was the reason that his writ petition for the same cause of action did not succeed. Though this case was a fit case for grant of exemplary cost, counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a lowly Class IV employee and his over exuberance for getting a higher post may not be equated by his impertinence towards the Court. Considering the aforementioned aspect and treating the matter rather leniently this Court would dismiss this frivolous writ application without ordering any payment of cost against the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/