IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7561 of 2011 Shiv Nath Singh, s/o- Late Bhairo Singh r/o- village- Mahamadpur, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna. ……….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India. 2. The Secretary of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Director (Police Finance) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 4. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Home Ministry, Unit I.O.C. Barauni, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 5. The Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F., Home Ministry, Unit I.O.C. Barauni, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 6. The Chairman of Recruitment Board-cum-Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit Khstpp Kahalgaon. 7. The Director General of Police, C.I.S.F. Eastern Zone, Head Quarter, Patna. 8. The Asstt. Commandant, Eastern Zone, C.I.S.F. H.Q. Patna. …… Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Shiva Shankar Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Union : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, ASG. ---------------------------------- 4 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Union. The grievance of the petitioner is that he became eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in the establishment of the respondent since his father, while serving the Central Industrial Security Force (for short “ the CISF”) as Sub-Inspector of Police died in harness on 2.12.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for his appointment on compassionate ground but no action thereon was taken as a result whereof, he has to approach this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10248 of 2010 (Shiv Nath Singh versus Union of India & Ors). The said application was disposed of by following order “Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union, I direct the petitioner to file fresh application before the Competent authority for 2 appointment on compassionate ground annexing the death certificate of his father, which should be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time not exceeding three months from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner along with a copy of this order.” In the light of liberty so granted by this Court, the petitioner filed application before the Competent Authority. The respondents, by communication dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure-9) called upon the petitioner to appear at the physical eligibility test. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared at the physical eligibility test. The respondents, by document contained in Annexure-10, declared him fail in 01 mile race. By yet another communication dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure-11), the petitioner was again called upon to appear for the physical eligibility test. The petitioner utilized the said opportunity. Again, he was declared fail in running as would appear from Annexure-12. The petitioner has again approached this Court for quashment of those two orders dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure-10) and 20.1.2011(Annexure-12) whereby he was declared unfit in physical eligibility test. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could have been considered for the post of Follower for which a lenient physical eligibility test is prescribed. The respondents ought to have considered him against the said post. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which a stand has been taken that the petitioner was afforded two opportunities to clear the physical eligibility test 3 but he failed thereat which dis-entitled him for appointment in the CISF even on compassionate ground. However, in paragraph 8, the respondents have stated as under: “8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no. 1(ii) of the writ petition, it is submitted that as per guidelines issued vide CISF Directorate Circular No. 21/2005 dated 14.06.2005, general category candidates who do not get success in the first chance, will be given two more chances (total 3 chances) in the subsequent examinations to be held and candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories will be given three more chances (total 4 chances). Petitioner belongs to OBC category, and having 2 more chances (total 4 chances) to qualify the running and other criteria. But without exhausting all the chances, petitioner has filed the instant writ. So, at this stage, no order is expected to be issued.” Learned Assistant Solicitor General, based on averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly, those made in paragraph 8, states that petitioner has still two more chances/opportunities to qualify in the physical eligibility test enabling the respondents to offer him appointment on compassionate grounds. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on records, it is apparent that the petitioner, in order to get appointment even on compassionate ground in CISF, has to qualify/clear the physical eligibility test. As per the stand taken by the respondents, petitioner has still two more chances/opportunities to clear the physical eligibility test. Considering the fact that the matter of grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is pending since 2009, this Court 4 would observe that the respondents shall provide him the opportunities as quickly as possible so that the petitioner may utilize those two opportunities and get himself appointed on compassionate grounds in the CISF. While disposing of the application in the aforesaid manner, this Court observes that if the post of Follower in the CISF can be offered to the petitioner on compassionate ground and the relevant Rule permits then the respondents shall consider subjecting him to a less arduous physical eligibility test. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)