IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14542 of 2006 Suresh Kumar Singh, son of late Satyadev Singh, resident of village and P.O. Rampur Waina, P.S. Parashi, District- Arwal ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee-cum-District Magistrate, Arwal 4.District Superintendent of Education, Arwal ………… Respondents ----------- 2. 28/06/2010 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to grant him age relaxation in upper age limit for his appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Government letter no.8093 dated 25.7.1998 and appoint him on compassionate ground. Copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure-2A to the writ application. The said letter evidences that the decision of the Government by which, cancelling the letter no.10838 dated 1.11.1993, it was decided that in the matter of compassionate appointment, case of the candidate should be considered for condonation of upper age limit by the Head of the Department in terms of Rule 54 Appendix-1 of Bihar Service Code. From Annexure-1 it appears that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner in its meeting dated 19.1.2006 only on the ground - 2 - that on the date of application his age was 40 years one month whereas upper age limit for appointment in Government service is 38 years for backward class candidates, to which petitioner belongs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures-5 and 6 to show that in identical circumstances cases of candidates were referred to the Director, Primary Education and he condoned the upper age limit of the candidates with specific reference to the said letter of the Government. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to show that the case of the said two candidates were different from the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not shown as to why he deserves special consideration. Apparently, in terms of the said letter of the Government dated 25.7.1998, consideration has to be made by the Head of the Department of the concerned Department. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee was not competent to reject the application of the petitioner on that ground and it ought to have referred the matter to - 3 - the Head of the Department to consider whether petitioner deserves condonation of upper age limit or not. In the circumstances, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee is directed to refer the matter of the petitioner to the Director, Primary Education for consideration for condonation of his upper age limit in terms of the said letter of the Government dated 25.7.1998 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Director, Primary Education shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in terms of the said letter within one month from the date of receipt of the said matter from the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. For this purpose, the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)