IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15115 of 2005 RAJ KUMAR PASWAN Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELEC.BOARD &OR --- For the petitioner: Mrs. Sushmita Mishra,Advocate Mr. Surya Narayan Sah,Advocate Mr. Krishna Vallabh Sharma,Advocate Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K.Sinha, J.C. to S.C.VIII For Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.Akhileshwar Singh,Advocate --- 8. 19.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had originally filed the writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on account of death of his father while still in service on 20.6.2001. In the writ application it was stated that the District Compassionate Committee met on 11.8.2003 and recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on class-III post. Subsequently the Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Bhagalpur stated that no vacancy was available in the said Department and accordingly, a further recommendation was made by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 20.11.2006 and the case of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on a class-III post in the Education Department. Along with the petitioner two other persons, namely, Mukund Kumar Jha and Gulnar Shagufta were also recommended for appointment in the same Department. It appears that on the basis of a Circular issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department on 28.12.2006, consent was sought from the candidates for being 2 appointed on the post of Panchayat/Nagar Shikshak. The petitioner gave his consent while the other two candidates did not give their consent. It is stated that the petitioner was an Intermediate and the other two candidates were merely Matriculate. On the basis of the said facts, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Nagar Shikshak on the fixed contractual pay of Rs.4000/-, whereas the other two candidates were given regular appointments as class- III Government servants in the State Government in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. Aggrieved by the same and alleging discrimination, the petitioner has challenged such further action of the respondent- authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the Letter No.6905 dated 17.10.2008 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department , Government of Bihar, it has been clearly pointed out that the posts of Panchayat/Prakhand/Nagar Panchayat Shikshak are not the posts under the State Government and with respect to such posts, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Compassionate Committee to recommend an appointment. It is further directed in the said Circular that no such recommendation for appointment on compassionate ground on such post should be made in the near future and if any such recommendation has been made earlier, then the District Compassionate committee should re-consider the same and make a further recommendation in accordance with the Circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made a victim in a situation where he was compelled to give his consent for appointment on the post of Nagar Shikshak which post is not at all a post under the State Government and thus the authorities have committed a serious blunder in the matter by appointing the petitioner on the said post, even on the basis of so-called consent which the petitioner, in view of the long standing nature of his case, had no option but to accept such appointment on fixed salary in order to avoid the dire financial straits in which he and his family members had fallen. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in terms of the Circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms from time to time coupled with the specific recommendation made by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 20.11.2006 could only have been made on a class-III post in the State Government and not on a post outside the State Government falling under the Panchayat/Prakhand/Nagar Panchayat or otherwise. It is, therefore, urged that the respondent-authorities are obliged to appoint the petitioner in terms of the said Circular and the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has sought to place reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pratima Kumari Vs. Union of India and others: 2007 (3) PLJR 210. 4 On a consideration of the said decision, although detailed facts are not mentioned therein, but it appears that in the said case a compassionate appointment had been offered on a post under the Central Government in accordance with the Rules and Circulars in force and the petitioner was claiming appointment on a higher post. In the said circumstances, this Court while hearing a writ petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal had held that it was not for the writ Court to enhance or substract the substance and content of the Scheme under which the compassionate appointments are being made. It is evident that the aforesaid proposition has no relevance or application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here on account of a misconceived Circular/ letter dated 28.12.2006 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, the petitioner was asked to give his consent for appointment on a post which admittedly is not a post under the State Government in view of the Circular dated 17.10.2008 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been granted compassionate appointment in terms of the Scheme laid down by the State Government. In the said circumstances, the authorities are obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the recommendation dated 20.11.2006 made by the District Compassionate Committee on a class-III post under the State Government in the Department of Education. 5 The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the respondent- authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on a class-III post in the Education Department of the State Government in terms of the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee made on 20.11.2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)