IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9755 of 2007 KRISHNA PRASAD, son of Late Dadan Yadav, resident of Mohalla Maulabag, P.S. Nawada (Ara), District Bhojpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Director Human Resources Development (Higher Education) Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara through Vice Chancellor, V.K.S.U. Ara 3. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 4. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 5. The Compassionate Appointment Committee through its Chairman, Veer Kuar Singh University Ara 6. The Principal, S.B.College, Ara, P.S. Nawada, District Bhojpur at Ara … Respondents ----------- 2. 7.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the competent authority of Veer Kunwar Singh University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) vide resolution dated 9.5.2006 wherein the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the University while examining the case of the petitioner has held as follows: ^^Jh d`".kk izlkn iq= Lo0 nnu ;kno] pijklh] ,l0ch0dkWyst] vkjk ds vkosnu ij fopkjksijkUr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd pwafd jkT; ljdkj ds i=kad 15@,e 1&95@2001 80&f'k- 404 fnukad 3-3-06 ds vuqlkj Lo0 ;kno dk in mudh e`R;q ds lkFk gh lekIr gks x;k gS] blfy, Jh izlkn ds vkosnu dks fujLr fd;k tk;A** 2 Counsel for the petitioner would submit that merely because the post on which the father of the petitioner was continuing got abolished after his death as per the Government order dated 3.3.2006 will not mean that he was not working as against a sanctioned post which is one of the main factor to be taken into account while considering the cases of compassionate appointment. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, in absence of any counter affidavit filed by him would take a line of least resistance and would submit that once the post on which the services of the father of the petitioner were regularized got abolished in terms of the Government order dated 3.3.2006, there would be no question for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this Court there is a clear misunderstanding in the minds of the authorities of the University as with regard to scope of compassionate appointment as per the Government policy dated 5.10.1991 also 3 adopted by the University. The Government policy dated 5.10.1991 lays down that one of the pre-condition for appointment on compassionate ground of a dependent of the deceased employee will be that such deceased employee must have been working against a sanctioned post and his appointment must have been made in the prescribed manner. The very fact that the Government had sanctioned the post for the father of the petitioner by its order dated 3.3.2006 would go to show that the father of the petitioner was working against the sanctioned post. Whether such sanctioned post was permanent in nature or temporary in nature or its life was only till continuation of the father of the petitioner in service will not as per circular of compassionate ground make the petitioner disentitled for consideration. Every constituent college being an unit, the case of the petitioner for the college in question where the father was working has to be considered if there is any vacancy on which the petitioner as per his qualification can be appointed irrespective of his qualification even on Class III or Class IV post. This aspect of the matter, 4 therefore, would require reconsideration, inasmuch as the impugned resolution passed by the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the University has not gone into the aspect of vacancy. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone on the merit of the issue as to whether the petitioner has to be appointed on compassionate ground and its limited enquiry, as noted above, is with regard to the reason that has been given in the impugned order. The reason given in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and accordingly the relevant portion of Annexure 4 containing the resolution quoted above is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent University and its officials for reconsidering the whole thing in the light of the observation made above and of course in terms of the Government policy dated 5.10.1991 as up dated from time to time. This application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/