IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11487 of 2006 SHASHI NANDAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 10/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds on a grade-III post. For reasons of non- availability of the post and the pressing urgency the petitioner gave in writing that he was willing to join a grade-IV post. When the vacancy became available on a grade-III post he was posted on the same. The latter came to be annulled subsequently when the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2840/06. The same was disposed with liberty to represent. A copy of the representation is appended at annexure-6. It appears that the issue sought to be raised presently was not the subject matter of the representation. The submission from annexure-8 is that by Government order No.599(4) dated 4.4.2006 in similar circumstances one Shri Bishweshwar Ram was recommended for appointment on a grade-III post when for non-availability of the post in that grade he was posted on a grade-IV post, but subsequently he was appointed on a grade-III post. On merits, the law stands settled that a person seeking appointment on compassionate grounds cannot claim right to be appointed on a post or grade of his choice presently grade-III post. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception, not the rule. - 2 - To that extent, this Court finds it difficult to grant any positive relief to the petitioner so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.8.2006. The impugned order states that the petitioner could not be given the benefit of a compassionate appointment twice. That is exactly what has been done in annexure-8 by order dated 4.4.2006. The act of the respondents appears to be an act of favouritism. Any acts of favouritism by picking out people from the hat to abide by their lucky number, is not permissible and is contrary to Article-14 of the Constitution of India. This writ application is disposed with directions to the respondents to either accord similar treatment to the petitioner or to annul orders contrary to the law, noticed above, after hearing the concerned within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC ( Navin Sinha, J )