IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3436 of 2008 CHITTRANJAN KUMAR,S/O LATE VYAS PANDIT, R/O VILLAGE-GANDAK COLONY, NO. 2, QUARTER NO. E-15, P.S.BETTIAH (MUFFASIL), DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ..........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE AND INVESTIGATION DIVISION, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. ............RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate For the State : G.A.-2 --------- PRESENT HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORDER (19.04.2011) Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application seeking a direction for consideration of his appointment on class-III post of Clerk-cum-typist on compassionate ground after being his appointed and continued on a class-III post of Blue Printer has to be rejected for more than one reason. First of all, the petitioner while seeking compassionate appointment cannot claim any 2 particular post. He can also not be heard to say the post recommended for his appointment by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee was binding on the appointing authority. Moreover when the petitioner on compassion was offered the available vacant post of Blue Printer and he had also gleefully accepted the same way back in 3.8.1998 he would be stopped from now questioning such appointment on any ground especially when there is also a gap of 10 years in filing of this writ petition. Additionally, this Court would find that the very purpose of compassionate appointment was served by immediately providing at least a support for the members of the dependent family in form of the appointment of the petitioner in 1998 and therefore, now no second consideration can be made again on compassionate ground for petitioner’s appointment on a higher post of Clerk-cum- Typist. The claim of compassionate appointment has its own limitations and this Court would not like now the compassion to be converted into a right. This aspect of the 3 matter stands settled in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh reported in (1994) 6 SCC 560 wherein it has been held that there is no such principle as endless compassion and the claim will stand extinguished once a post is offered and accepted. This Court would accordingly find it extremely difficult to issue a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground against a Class-III post, which is not only belated but also not permissible in view of the policy of compassionate appointment and law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Umrao Singh (supra). That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Patna High Court dated the 19th April 2011 A.F.R./Ranjan