IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9510 of 2006 BABLU PASWAN,son of late Shibo Paswan, resident of village- Jairampur, Post Office- Jairampur, Police Station- Bihpur,District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 3. The Superintendent of Police, Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur 4. The Officer-in-charge, Bihpur Police Station, Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Navin Prasad Singh,Advocate Mr. Uday Bhan Singh,Advocate Mr. Narayan Singh,Advocate For the State: Mr. Ram Chandra Pd.Bharti,S.C.14 Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.C. to S.C.,14. --- 2. 31.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment on account of death of his father on 8.3.1987, while he was serving as Chowkidar. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Naugachhia, the stand taken is that the petitioner was merely eight years old on the day when his father died and thus his case was not fit to be considered for compassionate appointment after he attained majority nearly ten years later. It is further submitted that the death having taken place nearly 22 years back and the family of the deceased having survived the alleged financial hardship and distress, no right has remained for appointment on compassionate ground. Lastly, the stand taken is that in the year 1987 when the petitioner’s father died, the post of Chowkidar had not yet been declared to be a Government service and, therefore, no right to compassionate appointment under the Circular of the Government would 2 arise in such case. There appears substantial force in each of the reasons advanced on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to derive support from the fact that several such appointments of persons, who were minor at the time of death of their fathers, have been made as Chowkidar and thus, the petitioner should be treated on equal footing. The right to equality cannot be stretched to the extent that an illegality committed by the authorities should be allowed to be perpetuated. The petitioner who approaches this Court must show that he has an independent right which can be enforced by this Court. For invoking the right to equality under the Constitution, it has not been shown by the petitioner as to under what provisions the compassionate appointment can be granted to the petitioner, that too at this belated stage. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)