IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11361 of 2007 MD.UMAR FAROOQUE son of late Md. Yasin, resident of Marar P.S. Marar District Khagaria, presently working on Class IV post as peon at Millat College, Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. TheRegistrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Principal, Millat College, Darbhanga. with CWJC No.11362 of 2007 WAIZUL HAQUE son of late Serajul Haque, resident of village sarai Sattar Khan P.S. Laheria Saki, District Darbhanga, Presently working on Class-IV post in Mawwari College, Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Principal, Marwari College, Darbhanga. ----------- 3 8.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the parties this Court must express its dissatisfaction with regard to the state of affairs in the matter of up-gradation of certain Class-IV employees of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, who were allegedly upgraded on the post of Routine Clerk on the selective basis. Annexure-2 to the writ application, C.W.J.C. No.11361 of 2007, will go to show that initially the University had appointed as many as ten persons on Class-IV posts on compassionate ground, but for them a new criteria was evolved for upgrading them on Class-III posts on a specious ground that they were having requisite qualification of a 2 Class-III employee i.e. qualification of graduation and they were also wards of such deceased employees who were working on Class-III posts. Grievance of the petitioners start from this order dated 25.7.2006, inasmuch, they too claim to have been appointed on compassionate ground on Class-IV posts even when they too had the qualification of graduation at the time of their appointment. They are sore respective bread earners employees dying in harness that only because their were not Class-III employees they were ignored in the matter of upgradation on Class-III posts when cases of others similarly situated Class-IV employees were considered while issuing Annexure-2. In the considered opinion of this Court something is inherently defective. Each of the compassionate appointment made is a one time exercise and whatever post is assigned to a person that cannot be changed only to suit and serve the interest of the particular employees. The very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family and if such relief was given by appointment of Class-IV post there was infact no need for the University to evolve a new criteria as is sought to be explained in the counter affidavit. This Court in the given circumstances would therefore direct the present Vice-Chancellor of the University to consider the cases of the petitioners and if for the reasons explained in the counter affidavit including the government policy of the year, 1995, the persons once appointed on Class-IV posts cannot be 3 given Class-III posts, the same should not be made applicable only in the case of the petitioners but for all others. In that event even the persons upgraded from Class-IV posts to Class-III posts including those benefited by the order of the University dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure-2) will have also to be reverted back to their Class-IV posts. If, however, the University does not care for the government instruction and would evolve its own methodology to upgrade the already appointed Class-IV employees to Class-III posts, it also must be fair by uniformly making it applicable in other similar cases including the petitioners. In that view of the matter, these applications are being disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a firm decision in the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order either by upgrading the petitioners and all other similarly situated person with the same benefits as was extended to ten other employees vide order contained in Annexure-2 dated 25.7.2006 or to also cancel Annexure-2 for others so that everyone being appointed on compassionate ground being of the same class gets equal treatment in the matter of continuation in service of the University. With the aforementioned observations and directions these applications are disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)