IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1098 of 2010 1. PRIYA RANJAN S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD R/O VILL & P.O.SAHJAHANPUR,P.S. SAHJAHANPUR,DISTT-PATNA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS BLOCK TEACHER IN MIDDLE SCHOOL,SONARU,ANCHAL-FATUHA, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR null null 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVEOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATNA DIVISION ,PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA -CUM-CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE null PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION PATNA, DISTT- PATNA ----------- 3 20.9.2010 The petitioner’s father was an Assistant Teacher in a Government School. He died in harness on 28-9-2002. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended the appointment of the petitioner against Class III post. This recommendation was made in the year 2004. In the year 2006, the State Government came out with the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules 2006. Similar rule was for Block Teacher and for Municipal Teacher. The State Government took a decision that all compassionate appointments of Class III post would now be made as Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner was accordingly offered the job as a Block Teacher. He accepted under protest as he was praying that he should be appointed as a regular Assistant 2 Teacher under the Government. That having not been accepted, the petitioner has come to this Court. Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s right to be appointed on compassionate basis crystallized in the year 2004, when there were posts of Assistant Teachers available in Class III. There were other posts available as Class III post. He should accordingly be given compassionate appointment instead of being pushed into Block Teacher in a fixed remuneration and employment under Zila Parishad. For this reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in CWJC No. 13944 of 2005 and analogous cases, decided on 4-12-2008 and similar decision. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State placed reliance in the case of the State of Bihar and others – versus- Chandra Bhushan Prasad and others being LPA No. 81 of 2010 and analogous cases being Judgment of the Division Bench wherein the similar question arose. The Division Bench noticing earlier Judgment ‘though not the Judgment as relied on by the petitioner’, which has taken similar stand as in the present case sought to be canvassed by the petitioner and rejected the same. The Division Bench held that compassionate appointment was a matter of policy laid down by the Government and was not a policy to operate as opening of Heritage Office. Thus seen, when the appointments were being given if the policy has changed, petitioner had to accept the 3 changed decision. The employment, as offered to the petitioner, this Court feels is also a secured employment. The compassionate appointment is not a right or a fundamental right. It is only to overcome an adverse social situation because of untimely death of an earning member. Thus seen, the policy having changed, petitioner having been offered the job of Block Teacher and petitioner having accepted the same as far as 2007, thus the Writ petition merits no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)