1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1392 of 2008 DHARMENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, S/O JAGARNATH MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE SADAWAH,P.S.DULHIN BAZAR, DISTRICT PATNA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATNA. .............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 21.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner has assailed the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 22.07.2005, whereby and whereunder his case for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that there was no application filed by the mother of the petitioner and that the application was filed by the petitioner in the prescribed proforma in the year 2002. The resolution dated 22.7.2005 of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee reads as follows:- ^^ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q fnukad 22-10-89 dks gqbZ Fkh tcfd vkosnd dk vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd iVuk ds i=kad 196 fnukad 15-01-02 }kjk yxHkx 13 o"kksZa ds ckn izkIr gqvkA dkfeZd 2 ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds i=kad 2822 fnukad 27-4-95 esa fufgr izko/kku ds rgr vkosnu i= nsus ds le; lhek ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q ds frfFk ls 05 o"kZ rd gSA blfy;s fnukad 16-1-04 dh vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd esa vkons ds vkosnu i= dks dkyckf/kr ekurs gq, vLhd`r dj fn;k x;kA vuqdEik lfefr ds fui.kZ; ds fo:n~/k vkosnd }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 ua0 1381@04 nk;j fd;k xz;kaA mDr ckn esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 07-03-05 dks ;g U;k; funs'k fn;k x;k gS fd vkonsd dh eka ds }kjk o"kZ 1993 esa vkosnd ds vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr gsrq nh xbZ vkosnu i= ij fu;ekuqlkj vkns'k izkfIr ds 12 lIrkg ds vUnj fu.kZ; fy;k tk;A dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx }kjk vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr fuxZr ifji=ksa esa ;g Li"V :Ik ls mYysf[kr gS fd vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnd }kjk vkosnu i= lacaf/kr dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftls lacaf/kr dk;kZy; ds fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh }kjk vuqdEik lfefr dks vuq'kalk lfgr vxzlkfjr djuk gS vkosnd dh eka }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= vuqdEik lfefr dks vizkIr gS tcfd vkosnd dk fofgr izi= esa vkosnu i= o"kZ 2002 esa vuqdEik lfefr dks izkIr gqvk gS tks dkyckf/kr gSA** Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such reason could not have been made the basis for rejection of the case of the claim of appointment of the petitioner, inasmuch as, there was a direction by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being C.W.J.C No. 13814 of 2004 that the mother’s application dated 3 03.02.1993, should be considered, because the same was filed by her after the petitioner had become major on 22.01.1993. He would therefore, submit that the impugned order is based on non est and non-existent fact and this Court should accordingly direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that the whole story of filing application by the mother of the petitioner on 22.01.1993 was itself found to be false and this regard he would refer to the document annexed by the petitioner namely Annexure-3, which contains the date 03.02.1992 and not 03.02.1993. He would further submit that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had filed an application in the prescribed proforma as laid down in the policy dated 05.10.1991, only in the year 2002 and that was held to be time barred, because the same had not been filed within a period of five years from the date of death of his father. In the considered opinion of this Court, the signature of the mother of the 4 petitioner in the alleged application filed by her and the order of this Court dated 07.03.2005 in C.W.J.C No. 13814 of 2004 would itself go to show that no application was filed by the mother of the petitioner in the date of 03.02.1993, which alone was directed to be considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Normally, there could be an impression of some typographical error in writing the date of 03.02.1992 as 03.02.1993, but then in this case such impression can also not be allowed to exist, inasmuch as, it was a definite case of the petitioner in C.W.J.C No. 13814 of 2004 that when the petitioner became major on 22.01.1993 (his date of birth being 22.01.1975), his mother had filed an application on 03.02.1993 seeking appointment of her son (petitioner) as he had become eligible within five years of the date of death of the deceased employee, i.e. 22.10.1988. Based on this impression created by the petitioner himself, this Court had directed the authority to consider the application of the petitioner dated 22.01.1993 for appointment on compassionate ground. Today counsel for the petitioner 5 having been asked to produce the copy of the application filed by the mother of the petitioner on 22.01.1993, has pointed out that the only application filed by the mother is dated 03.02.1992 (Annexure-3). Obviously this alone would falsify the claim of the petitioner that his mother had filed an application after the petitioner became major on 22.01.1993. The only application therefore being dated 03.02.1992, when the petitioner was still a minor was incapable of being acted upon and as such the subsequent application filed by the petitioner in 2002 had been rightly held to be time barred. Once this aspect becomes clear that there was no application in the date of 03.02.1993, the reasoning given by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground also does not appear to be erroneous. Additionally it has to be kept in mind that the death of the employee had taken place some 23 years back and if the family has survived for a period of 23 years, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has now come to an end. 6 Ranjan That being so, this application seeking a direction for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)