IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.663 of 2007 1. Alok Kumar, son of late Madan Singh, resident of Village Bangra, P.O. Bangra, Police Station Maharajganj, District Siwan. 2. Manoj Kumar Tiwary, son of late Kamta Prasad Tiwary, resident of Village Bheldi, P.O. Bheldi, Police Station Bheldi, District Saran (Chapra). 3. Sanjay Kumar Maurya, son of late Nandlal Prasad, resident of Village Magahi, P.O. Gopalpur, Police Station Basantpur, District Siwan. 4. Uday Kumar Ram, son of late Jang Bahadur Harijan, resident of Village Sakara, P.O. Shivpur, Sakara, Police Station Asaon, District Siwan. 5. Devanand Kumar, son of late Prabha Kumari, resident of Village + P.O. Hasanpura, police Station M.H. Nagar, District Siwan. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra. 7. The District Education Officer, Siwan. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. 9. The District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee through its Chairman, the District Magistrate, Siwan. 10. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 11. The Deputy Collector-cum-Senior Incharge Officer, District Establishment Branch, Siwan. 12. The Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ---------- Respondents ----------- 6 28.03.2011 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. SC-16, counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application initially was for making an appointment on compassionate ground but when the petitioners 2 came to be appointed on different posts of Panchayat/Prakhand Shikshak by way of compassionate ground in the month of May, June and July, they have amended their prayer by seeking direction that their such appointment on the post of Panchayat/Prakhand Shikshak, being not in conformity with the recommendation made by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 31.12.2005, should be scrapped and the respondents should be directed to appoint the petitioners against Class-III post in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4540 as per the first recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Mishra in this context had also drawn attention of this Court towards the Government decision dated 1st September, 2008 wherein certain clarifications were issued as with regard to the post of Panchayat/Prakhand Shikshak to be not actually Government employment and, therefore, the scheme of compassionate appointment could not be made applicable against such post. Mr. Mishra, however, frankly conceded that all these issues were canvassed before Full Bench of this Court in 3 the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar reported in 2010(3)PLJR 294 and the issue has since been answered against the petitioners. He, however, has informed this Court that as the Special Leave Petition against the aforementioned judgment is pending before the Apex Court, this writ application should also be disposed of by observing that the result of the case of the petitioners would also be governed by the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment against the Full Bench judgment of this Case in the case of Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar (supra). Counsel for the State on the other hand would point out that as a matter of fact, the recommendation on which the petitioners have been insisting and seeking direction itself was modified, inasmuch as, when the District Compassionate Appointment Committee was informed that there was no vacancy on Class- III post for the petitioners to be appointed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4540, the Committee in its meeting held on 24.8.2007 had recommended for their appointment on vacant post of Panchayat/Prakhand Shikshak. 4 Counsel for the State, therefore, has pointed out that once the recommendation itself did not remain in existence, the subsequent prayer of the petitioners, seeking direction for implementation of a recommendation which no longer remains in existence, is not maintainable. He has also submitted that all these aspects including Government decision with regard to post of Panchayat/Prakhand Shikshak, being not Government post and thus incapable of being filled up as per Government policy, were duly gone into by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar (supra) wherein it has been held that after the empowerment of Panchayat and change in law with regard to the control of schools in the hand of Panchayat/Prakhand of such earlier post of teachers have to be necessarily remoduled for its being filled up as the new rules framed in the year 2005 and 2006. Strictly speaking, this common writ application of five petitioners is not maintainable for a simple reason that all the petitioners had a different cause of action 5 with regard to the death of the deceased employee but then as the petitioners have been now able to continue this proceeding for a period of four years and have also paid the necessary court fee, this Court would not non-suit them on this technical ground. The office however in future should be careful in making the stamp report, inasmuch as, merely payment of court fee in all such cases cannot be an answer to the maintainability of a joint writ application. Each of the petitioners has a different cause of action and merely because they are bound by one Government policy of compassionate appointment, will not make them entitled to file a joint writ application. Coming to the merit of this case, the scheme of compassionate appointment is only by way of providing immediate means of sustenance to the family of the deceased bread earner. If the Government, therefore, under the policy has considered the case of the petitioners and offered them employment which has also been accepted by the petitioners, they cannot now take a plea that 6 their appointment should be made on a particular post. Moreover, the aspect as to whether the appointment on compassionate ground of the ward of deceased Government servant can be made on the post of Prakhand Shikshak has been gone into by this Court in the Full Bench judgment in the case of Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar (supra) and the Full Bench after considering all the facts and law had laid down the law, which reads as follows:- “27. We have referred to the above circular in extenso only to appreciate that a legal heir or dependant having no legal right to be appointed to a Government post cannot claim it as a matter of right. The State Government has withdrawn the preference that existed in the circular dated 12.7.1977. It has made an alternative arrangement that the teachers serving in the erstwhile Government schools, when die-in- harness, their legal heirs can be accommodated as Prakhand Teachers. The view expressed in Brajesh Kumar (supra) that they cannot be appointed in the said schools is really not a matter to be adverted to by this Court as it is the policy decision of the Government to appoint such teachers in those schools by carving out an 7 exception. As has been stated in many a decision, a compassionate appointment by its very nature is an exception and the same has to be treated as an exception for all purposes. Possibly, the matter would have been different had the rule been in force conferring a particular privilege on the legal heir or dependant of the Government teacher, who died-in- harness. That not being the position, the Government has the power/authority to change the policy from time to time and that having been done, no fault can be found with the post of Prakhand Teacher in the Koilwawr Block.” The aspect that the matter is now pending before the Apex Court would be hardly a ground for keeping this case pending fully governed by the judgment of the Full Bench of Rajeeva Ram Vijaya Kumar (supra) inasmuch as, the law laid down by the Apex Court in future on this issue will always have the binding effect in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application devoid any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)