IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11082 of 2007 MUKRI DEVI, wife of late Nathuni Sah, resident of Mohalla Nariyar Road, Naya Bazar, Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Compassionate Establishment Committee, Saharsa 3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa 4. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Saharsa, District Saharsa 5. The Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Saharsa … Respondents ----------- 2. 7.4.2011 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 5.7.2007, as contained in Annexure 8, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been considered and rejected on the following grounds: elksekr eqdjh nsoh flfoy ltZu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ifr Lo0 uFkquh lkg lgjlk bl ekeys dk fu"iknu 4 ¼pkj½ HkwriwoZ lsod ekg ds vUnj djus dk vkns'k lnj vLirky lgjlk ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0&15232@05 leh{kk esa ik;k x;k fd esa fnukad 08-05-2007 dks ikfjr elksekr eqdjh nsoh vui<+ gSA U;k;kns'k ds fu"iknu dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k&531 fnukad 12-5-2005 ,oa 3577 fnukad 25-04-97 }kjk prqFkZ oxhZ; in ij fu;qfDr gsrq U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk v"Ve~ mRrh.kZ fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS ftls vuqdEik vk/kkj ij Hkh fu;qfDr gsrq ykxw dh xbZ gSA of.kZr i= 2 la[;k&531 fnukad 12-05-2005 }kjk Li"V funs'k fn;k x;k gS fd fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ogRrkZ ugha jgus ij mldk p;u ugha gks ldrk gSA ifji= esa fn;s x;s funs'k ds vkyksd esa pqafd eqdjh nsoh vui<+ gS vr% vkosnu loZlEefr ls vLohd`r fd;k x;kA** Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the aforementioned resolution would submit that the earlier circular of the Government as with regard to qualification on a Class IV post was simply being literate and proficiency in riding cycle. It is only the subsequent circular dated 12.5.2005 which introduced the concept of having passed Class VIII examination as a minimum educational qualification for the post of Class IV employees and therefore, the case of the petitioner in view of death of her husband in the year 2000 would be governed by the earlier provision. To that extent he relies on an order of this Court dated 19.8.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 16703/2004 (Sachi Kant Jha @ Suchi Kant Jha vs. the State of Bihar & ors.), reported in 2011(1) PLJR 139. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with the help of the counter affidavit 3 would submit that the qualification of having passed Class VIII examination for a Class IV post was introduced by the Government circular dated 25.4.1997 and therefore, when the petitioner is simply an illiterate lady to the extent who can merely put his signature and has definitely not passed the examination of Class VIII, she cannot be appointed due to lack of qualification. In this context he would not only placed reliance on the circular dated 25th April, 1997 but also the subsequent circular dated 12th May, 2005 marked as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the counter affidavit. There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner and therefore, her being an illiterate lady and of course having not passed Class VIII examination is an admitted fact. The Government circular dated 25th April, 1997 clearly lays down that in order to be appointed on a Class IV post the candidate must have passed an examination above Class VIII and below matriculation. The Government policy of compassionate appointment dated 4 5.10.1991 clearly lays down that the appointment on any post can be made only of such a person who would possess the minimum qualification prescribed for such post. Thus, when the petitioner does possess the minimum qualification the rejection of her case by the Compassionate Appointment Committee cannot be said to be vitiated by any error. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the earlier order of this Court in the case of Sachi Kant Jha (supra) is also misconceived. That was the case in which a panel of candidates for appointment on a Class IV post was prepared in the year 1994 and when appointment of such person was sought to be denied on the ground of subsequent introduction of qualification of Class VIII as per 1997 circular reiterated and clarified by 2005 circular that it was held that the educational qualification as was prevalent on the date of starting process of selection would only be applicable. One would fail to understand as to how the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of Sachi Kant 5 Jha (supra) can be made applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner’s cause of action for appointment on compassionate ground against a Class IV post had emerged only in the year 2000 when her husband had died in harness. At the time of death of her husband the 1997 circular was already in force laying down qualification of Class VIII as minimum prescribed qualification. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that the ratio of Sachi Kant Jha (supra) can be of no assistance to the case of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was ineligible for being appointed on a Class IV post, the decision taken by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in the impugned order does not suffer from any error. This application is, therefore, wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/