IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6013 of 2010 1. VINAY KUMAR PRASAD S/O LATE RAM BILASH RAI R/O VILL.- GANJ GAURIHAR, P.S.- SAKRA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE SELECTION COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, MUZAFFARPUR, COLLECTERIATE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SAKRA, P.S. SAKRA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE PRINCIPAL, RAI BAHADUR TUNKI SAH GOVT. HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MUZAFFARPUR----RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 12.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The decision of the District Compassionate Committee dated 14.1.2009 in so far as relates to the present petitioner is under challenge in the present writ application. He is one of sibling of erstwhile employee who died in harness. He has made a claim for compassionate appointment. But the committee after looking into the material available with regard to status of the family, employment of elder son in the Army as well as the quantity of land and property available with the family decided to reject his claim for compassionate appointment. Petitioner terms the same to be arbitrary and contrary to the policy for extending help to the family of the employee who died in harness. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed wherein a copy of the report of Halka Karmchari has been annexed, wherein details of the status of the family has been indicated. Keeping the totality of that report and input, the District Compassionate Committee did not think it to be a case where - 2 - claim of compassionate employment made by the petitioner met the objective of the policy. Family could take care of itself and it is not a case that the family is indigent or will go in distress if no immediate help is given. It is not a case of non-application of mind nor is it a case where the petitioner can be offered employment as a matter of right. In fact such employments could verge on the breach of may be Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the policy survives or exists Courts have taken a lenient view on the issue. Taking the facts into consideration the period when the death of the bread earner had occurred and the kind of property and income which the family has, it cannot be said that if the compassionate appointment is not offered to one of the members of the family it would arbitrary. Compassionate appointment is not a mechanism to obtain government employment, as the purpose behind the same is otherwise. If that purpose is not achieved the respondents are not bound to offer appointment as a matter of course. The reasoning given is based on inputs and the findings obtained by the District Compassionate Committee which is evident from annexure-A. Submission of learned counsel that mere fact that one of the family members is in government employment is not sufficient for survival of the family and the report is not based on actual state of affairs which has come in the so called enquiry. This Court however has reservation on such submission keeping in mind the decision annexed by the State - 3 - counsel as annexure-C. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)