IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9987 of 2011 Md.Merajul Haque S/o Late Seraj, resident of Vilalge- karimganj, P.S. Civil Line, Gaya …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Zila Parishad, Gaya, through Chief Executive Officer 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Gaya 4. The Chairman of Zila Parishad, Gaya 5. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman District Establishment Committee, Gaya Respondents For the petitioner :M/s Sharda Nand Mishra, Deepak Kumar & Dhananjay Kr. Gupta For Zila Parishad, Gaya :Mr. Ranjan Prasad & :Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha For the State :Ms. Madhubala Verma, AC to GA 2 & :Ms. Shilpi Keshri AC to AAG XI ----------- 05. 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Zila Parishad. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2011, passed by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner of the Respondent-Zila Prishad whereby the petitioner has been appointed on Class IV post in the Respondent-Parishad on compassionate ground. Father of the petitioner was serving the Respondent- Zila Parishad. He died on 04.10.2008 while in harness leaving behind a host of dependents including the widow and the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner claimed to have passed 2 the Intermediate examination and, as such, is entitled to Class III post. The mother of the petitioner also filed an affidavit relinquishing her claim in favour of the petitioner. Since the matter remained pending with the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 5511 of 2009 seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider and decide his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The said matter was disposed of by order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure-2) whereby this Court directed the respondents to consider his claim in accordance with law and take a final decision within stipulated period of time. The matter thereafter again remained pending which persuaded the petitioner to file a contempt petition being MJC No.3531 of 2009. It appears that during the pendency of the said contempt petition, the authorities passed the order contained in Annexure-5. In view of aforesaid order granting appointment to the petitioner on Class IV post, the contempt application was held to have become infructuous by order dated 18.05.2011. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has challenged the sustainability of the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter relating to grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground was considered by the Standing Committee of the Respondent-Zila Parishad on 9.08.2010 (Annexure-3) wherein the following decision was taken:- “MkW eqds’k dqekj ;kno] mik/;{k] ftyk ifj"kn us izLrko j[kk fd vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq vH;FkhZ eks0 esjktqy gd firk Lo0 eks0 lsjkt] vkWijsVj] ftyk ifj"knh; eqnz.kky;] 3 x;k ,oa eks0 tkosn vUlkjh] firk Lo0 jQhd vUlkjh dh fu;qfDr oxZ&3 (fyfid½ esa fd;k tk;A pwWfd ;s nksuksa vH;FkhZ l{ke ;ksX;rk bl in ds fy, j[krs gSaA mi fodkl vk;qDr&lg eq[; dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn] x;k us crk;k fd bl lEca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS fd prqFkZ oxhZ; esa gh fu;qfDr dh tk;A bldh lEiwf"V ftyk LFkkiuk 'kk[kk] x;k ls dj yh tk;A vxj vkns’k ogh gS rks ml in ij cgkyh dj yh tk;A” The matter was thereafter again placed and considered by the General Body of the Respondent Zila Parishad on 29.01.2011 wherein the General Body also recommended for his appointment on Class IV post in view of the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on 06.07.2010 (Annexure-3). It is contended that the Respondent-Chief Executive Officer is signatory to the aforesaid resolution as would appear from the said document. It is contended that the Chief Executive Officer, in terms of the scheme of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act,2006, particularly those contained in section 88 thereof is required to carry out the resolution of the Zila Parishad. It is contended that the said respondent has, therefore, acted arbitrarily and in wholly unjust manner in ignoring the recommendation of the General Body of the Respondent-Zila Parishad and appointing the petitioner on Class IV post instead of Class III post. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Relying on Annexure-C, it is submitted that on a consideration of details including the educational qualification furnished by the petitioner in format, the appropriate authority of the Respondent-Zila Parishad recommended his appointment on 4 Class IV post. It is next contended that the petitioner does not fulfill the educational requirement for Class III post in view of the order of the government contained in letter bearing memo no. 5684 dated 26.11.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits with reference to Annexure-A that the Respondent-Zila Parishad is reeling under financial crunch and is unable to pay regular salary to its employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was lodged by the petitioner in the year 2008 and, as such, subsequent change in eligibility criteria for Class III post would not be relevant and the respondents cannot justifiably refuse to appoint him on Class III post treating him ineligible for the said post. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner upon the death of his father while in service made application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The matter relating to appointment on compassionate ground has been considered by different Courts including the Apex Court in number of cases. The Apex Court has held that grant of such appointment would be contrary to the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, yet it is permissible since the purpose for grant of such appointment is to enable the family to tide over the emergent situation caused by the death of the bread earner in the family. It is seen from materials on record that on 5 consideration of his claim the appointment on Class IV post has already been offered to the petitioner. It is further seen from Annexure-C (details furnished by the petitioner in the format) that the appropriate authority of the Respondent-Zila Parishad recommended for his appointment on Class IV post. There is no controversy that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as required for Class III post in terms of the provision contained in letter bearing memo no. 5684 dated 26.11.2009. Keeping in view the nature of the claim raised by the petitioner, this Court would hold that, in such matter, the eligibility for the post at the time when such appointment is being made/issued would be relevant. Admittedly, the day on which the petitioner was granted appointment on Class IV post he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for Class III post in terms of the requirement spelt out in the letter no.5684 dated 26.11.2009. This Court having regard to the aforesaid facts does not wish to go into other submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Respondent-Chief Executive Officer was required to comply with the resolution/decision of the General Body of which he is ex-officio member. This Court is thus not persuaded to invoke its extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter to interfere with the order contained in Annexure-5. For the reasons stated above, the application is dismissed. After having dictated the order, Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure-5, submits that 6 under communication dated 06.05.2011 (Annexure-5) the petitioner was required to submit his joining within 15 days. The petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the present proceeding before this Court. It is thus contended that, in the interest of justice and in fitness of thing, the date set out in Annexure-5 for his joining the post be extended. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Zila Parishad, on the other hand, states that the period provided therein may be extended. Accordingly, this Court clarifies that if the petitioner submits his joining pursuant to Anexure-5 within 20 days from today, the respondents shall accept the same. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )