IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15212 of 2007 Mahesh Kumar, son of late Narendra Kumar, resident of Village Hemja, P.O. Mukhdumpur Bhangosha, P.S. wazirganj, District Gaya. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Gaya. 3. The Additional District Magistrate Establishment, Gaya. 4. The Secretary, District Compassionate Committee, Gaya. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Fatehpur, Gaya. 7. The Circle Officer, Fatehpur, Gaya. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 11.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Admittedly when the father of the petitioner died on 18.7.1984, the petitioner was aged about six years. It is said that the mother of the petitioner had filed an application in the year 1984 that after the petitioner would become major i.e. sometime in the year 1996, he will file his own application for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the Government should wait for his becoming major. Such application when filed by the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and was rejected on account of its being time barred. Counsel for the petitioner would submit 2 that the said reason given, declaring the application of the petitioner to be time barred, is absolutely an error of record, inasmuch as, the mother of the petitioner had already filed an application in the year 1984 seeking compassionate appointment of the petitioner. He would further submit that had the authorities rejected such claim of the petitioner, his mother could have been appointed on compassionate appointment. Attractive though the aforesaid submissions may be, the law is absolutely against the petitioner. No one has a right of appointment on compassionate ground and the limited right created for consideration for such compassionate appointment is itself circumscribed by certain conditions. The relevant circular then in vogue dated 12.7.1977 had required that the person seeking appointment on compassionate ground must be eligible for appointment in Government service meaning thereby he must be major on the date of being appointed. The petitioner was about six years of age at the time of the death of his father and, 3 therefore, as per the prevalent policy where the limitation for filing such application on compassionate appointment was only two years (which got enhanced to five years in the year 1989), the petitioner had not become major. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was not possible and his application, subsequently filed by him after becoming major, has been rightly rejected. This aspect of the matter in fact has been settled by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in 1993(1)PLJR 414. The parting submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were obliged to reject the case of the petitioner in the year 1984 on account of being minor and, in that event, the mother of the petitioner could have been appointed, again is an argument of desperation. No one had stopped the mother of the petitioner from claiming her own appointment on compassionate ground and the fact that she opted for the 4 petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground though he was ineligible aged about six years at the time of filing of her application, would go to show that she was not interested in getting her own appointment on compassionate ground. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)