IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3152 of 2010 1. JITENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE CHANDRA KISHORE MAHTO R/O VILL.- TURKI, P.O.- TURKI, P.S.- KURHANI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF ART CULTURAL AND YOUTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 02. 09.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The father of the petitioner Late Chandra Kishore Mahto, was appointed as a Peon in the Government Teachers Training College, Turki at Muzaffarpur, on compassionate ground, after the death of his father on 21.12.1974, on ad-hoc basis. He came to be re-appointed on 10.3.1978 again in a temporary capacity. He was removed from service on 30.5.2001 challenged by him in C.W.J.C. No. 9255 of 2001. During the pendency of the writ petition he was deceased on 16.3.2005. The petitioner was then substituted. The writ petition was disposed off in light of certain orders of a Division Bench by referring the issue of termination to the three men committee to examine whether the appointment was lawful or not. 2 The committee by an order dated 23.9.2009 held that the appointment was not inconsonance with law. Procedures provided in the relevant Rule of 1974 had not been followed. It was not made by the statutory committee. The appointment was made regular subsequently contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9460 of 2001 to urge that in view of the long years of service of his father continuously from 1978, the findings of the three men committee indicting the appointment was not inconsonance with law and equity. The petitioner is required to be considered for compassionate appointment after setting aside the impugned order dated 23.9.2009. The petitioner is also entitled to the post-retirement benefits of the deceased as his legal heir. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application to submit that the committee on examination having found the appointment illegal, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner. Compassionate appointment is not an inheritable right to remain a family preserve. According to the petitioner his father was also appointed on compassionate ground. Each appointment on 3 compassionate ground is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is an exception not the rule based on descent. If the aforesaid ground was not enough, the petitioner has survived to litigate since the death of his father on 16.3.2005 till November, 2010, when he has filed a writ petition and had earlier pursued the application of his father by substitution. Quite naturally he has the resources. This Court therefore finds it difficult to consider any claim for compassionate appointment both for reasons of passage of time and the precarious nature of the appointment disputed in nature as discussed. The strong reliance placed on the order in C.W.J.C. No. 9460 of 2001 dated 20.8.2001 does not hold to be good law, now in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2006 (4) SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi & Others) that judgment on the issue prior to that shall no more abide by the principle of precedent. The impugned order states that the father of the petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy without advertisement, roster clearance, preparation of a panel etc. to that extent the order impugned cannot be faulted with, but it also noticed that the father of the petitioner was regularized. There is no discussion 4 in the order of the manner in which the regularization was done and why the regularization was illegal. An illegal appointment is an issue different from an order for regularization. They may be inter dependant and separation may be possible. These were matters to be discussed in the order to conclude why the regularization was also illegal. The administrative order amenable to judicial review is required to contain reasons on each aspect. The reasons are made not only to enable the petitioner to decide whether he should pursue matters further or leave issue at that stage, but also facilitate the Court to expeditiously decide the issue. This Court, therefore, does not interfere with the order dated 23.9.2009 insofar as it denies compassionate appointment. The matter is remanded to the three men committee, limited to the issue of examining the regularization of the services of the father of the petitioner. If the committee is satisfied with the order of regularization, the petitioner shall be held entitled to the retiral dues to his father. If the committee is satisfied that the regularization was contrary to the law, the petitioner shall be entitled to no relief. It is expected that the discussed and reasoned order on the 5 aspect of regularization of the service of the father of the petitioner shall be passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)