IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1313 of 2009 UDAY KANT JHA, S/o. late Tara Kant Jha, r/o. Village- Ram Nagar Mahesh, P.O. Ram Nagar Bazar, P.S. Kumar Khand, District- Madhepura (Bihar). Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Water Resources (Jal Sansadhan) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Department of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar at Patna. 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Project, Purnea. 4. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kishi Project, Saharsa. ----------- 04. 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the order of the writ Court under appeal dated 20.07.2009 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC No. 2442 of 2003 has been dismissed after holding that the petitioner/appellant being son-in-law of the deceased employee was not included in the definition of family or dependent who could be offered compassionate appointment. It has further been found by the writ Court that the process for compassionate appointment at the relevant time also included selection by a committee and that process was never adhered to. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no doubt since 1977 the State Government had notified the scheme for compassionate appointment but 2 neither in that scheme nor in the later amendments there was any prohibition that a son-in-law will not be included in the family or in the list of dependent, who could be offered compassionate appointment. The aforesaid submission is misconceived and not tenable. Since 12.07.1977, the provisions relating to compassionate appointment have never included son-in-law in the category of persons who could be offered compassionate appointment, although the category was subsequently enlarged after 1977. Similarly, in the meantime circulars were issued in 1984 under which a committee was constituted for compassionate appointments at different levels and a State level committee was to be headed by Secretary of the concerned department. Considering the factual position and the legal provisions, we are in agreement with the writ Court that the authorities have committed no error of fact or law in passing the office order dated 25.01.2003 and 01.02.2003, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of illegal appointment in the garb of compassionate appointment. 3 From the order of the writ Court it appears that one instance was cited on behalf of appellant of a similar illegal appointment of one Ram Padarath Thakur. The writ Court has made suitable observations directing the authorities to look into the legality or illegality of the said appointment also. In the facts of the case, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the writ Court and the appeal is found without any merit. It is dismissed summarily, but without any cost. Mkr. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)