IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.271 of 2009 Nessar Ahmad, son of late Namuddin Sai, resident of Village- Gopalganj Dargah, P.S. Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ---- Petitioner—Respondent---Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Water Resource Secretary (Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Patna). 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 4. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 5. The Rehabilitation Officer, Bagmati Project, Sitamarhi --- - Respondents---Appellants ----- Opposite Parties. ---------- 4. 27.7.2010 Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar No.I for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Mishra, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.5 for the opposite parties. This application has been filed by the respondent of L.P.A. No.325 of 2007 ( The State of Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Nessar Ahmad), for recall of the order dated 7.5.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the State of Bihar and others was allowed and the order of the learned writ Court was set aside. It relates to appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The father of the present petitioner was in employment of the State of Bihar, and died in harness. The 2 petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was allowed, and the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on a class IV post. He joined the services of the Bihar Government, but it was recalled after lapse of two years, leading to C.W.J.C. No. 11376 of 2005 (Nessar Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar and others). The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29.1.2007, and the present petitioner’s appointment was restored. The State of Bihar preferred the aforesaid L.P.A. No. 325 of 2007, which has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner did not hold minimum educational qualification necessary for appointment on compassionate ground on the date of appointment. He remained short of the required qualification even on the date of cancellation of his appointment. The appeal preferred by the State of Bihar has been allowed on the ground that a compassionate appointment can not be allowed to continue in the face of absence of the basic minimum qualification. We entirely agree with the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for sympathetic approach, and submits that equitable 3 considerations on compassionate appointment may be protected. We are in this connection reminded of the observation made in the judgment dated 4.4.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12825 of 2005 (Ram Dhani Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar & others), rendered by one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) wherein it has been observed that misplaced sympathy is an unsafe guide in judicial proceedings. Paragraph 19 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “19. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Latham v. Johnson & Nephew, reported in 1911-13 All E.R. 117. The defendants were the owners of a piece of unfenced waste ground, on which to their knowledge and with their permission children had been in the habit of playing. Early one morning a heap of stones was deposited on the land by the defendants’ servants, and soon after, while on the land alone, the plaintiff, a child under three years of age, was injured by one of the stones falling on her hand. In an action brought on behalf of the plaintiff for damages for his injury, it was held that the defendants were not liable. It was further held that “….we must be careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will o’ the wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles…” We are mindful of the position that the judgment was rendered by a Single Judge. Therefore, the present order should not be taken to be affirmance by this Division Bench 4 of the views expressed in Ram Dhani Singh’s case. The same has been cited only for the purpose of disposal of the present application. 4. In the result, this application is rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (J.N. Singh, J.)