IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11442 of 2005 Geetanjali, D/o late Shiv Chandra Jha, resident of Village and P.O. Kharail Tola Belahi, P.S. and Distt. Supaul. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Department of Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court by way of issuing a writ preferably in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as the father of the petitioner who was an Assistant teacher of Primary School, died in harness on 5.8.99 whereafter the petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee, has applied for such appointment well within time but she has not been provided appointment letter as yet And/or any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2 Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner had initially filed an application for appointment on the post of teacher but the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had recommended for appointment against the Class-III post, inasmuch as, she was not having qualification for the post of teacher. The petitioner, in fact, was not appointed in terms of the recommendation of the Compassionate appointment Committee and, accordingly, this writ application was filed for the aforementioned relief. From the counter affidavit, it would be clear that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of teacher was not possible and further that there was no vacancy on the post of clerk within the jurisdiction of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa. In fact, the R.D.D.E., Saharsa by his order dated 8.3.2006 had appointed the petitioner against the vacant Class-IV post and to that extent, paragraph no.15 of the counter affidavit, which remains uncontroverted till today in absence of any 3 rejoinder affidavit, reads as follows:- “15. That it is further submitted that the petitioner previously applied for appointment for the post of teacher and later on since the restriction from ear marked dated i.e. 17.11.2003 for appointment of untrained on the post of teacher. The petitioner charged her option to get appointment on the post of clerk and making it a pretext of breakage of Siriatum of resolution/Minutes held on 15.9.03 the petitioner other hand adopted other means to get her appointment which is at present not feasible because non-availability of post of clerk in the jurisdiction of R.D.D.E. In the light of non availability of Class III post appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on Class-IV, post in fuldai Kanya High School, Bangaon, by the D.E. O Saharsa vide memo no. 218 of 8.3.2006.” Counsel for the petitioner, however, had emphasized that others recommended by the same Selection Committee were appointed on vacant Class-III post and to that extent, he has highlighted the plea of discrimination. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner was offered and appointed on a Class-IV post in absence of 4 vacancy in Class-III post, the respondents had done the needful to provide the means of sustenance to the family of the deceased employee. There can be no further bargaining by a person by claiming appointment on compassionate ground as to the category of post. Therefore, if the petitioner, in response to the order of her appointment dated 8.3.2006 had herself given in writing on 9.3.2006 that she was not interested in accepting the Class-IV post of peon, it would itself go to show that infact neither she nor her family members needed any appointment on compassionate ground. This Court had specifically put a question to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner was still interested in accepting the Class-IV post but, the reply came in negative. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)