IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15664 of 2006 SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA s/o Late Krishan Mishra village- Pakaria, P.O.- Mirza Chowki, P.s. Pirpaiti, District- Bhagalpur…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Education Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar. 3. District Compassionate Committee Banka through District Officer Banka. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Banka. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 29.8.2003 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on account of receipt of the application in the prescribed pro forma after described period of limitation. Mr. Awadh Bihari Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the father of the petitioner had died on 25.10.1983, the petitioner was aged about 5 years inasmuch as his date of birth is 5.1.1979 and therefore the application in the prescribed pro forma could not have been filed by him unless he could attain majority. 2 He has further tried to explain that even though the application in the prescribed pro forma has been filed in the year 2002 but then the mother of the petitioner had always kept the authority of the department inferred with the fact that her son the petitioner was minor and likely to become major and therefore the authority should wait for appointing the petitioner till he becomes major. Finally, he has also tried to support his submission from few order of the Jharkhand High Court including the one by a Division Bench dated 5.7.2006 in LPA No. 373 of 2005, Pradip Kumar Mehta vs. the Central Coalfieds reported in 2006(4)JLJR 267. Counsel for the State would submit that the issue, in hand, stands covered not only by the policy which was in vogue at the time of death of the father of the petitioner but also by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Anil Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1993(1) PLJR414 and in the case of Ghanshyam Ram vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1997(2) PLJR 354, wherein it was held that there was no scheme of reservation in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground and an application for compassionate appointment 3 has to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation only if the dependent of the deceased employee has become major in the period of limitation. He has further submitted that since the earlier view taken by the two Division Bench of the Patna High Court prior to 15/11/2000, when Jharkhand High Court came into existence in view of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 was not considered in any order of the Jharkhand High Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that cannot be a binding precedent. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner was aged about five years when his father had died on 25.10.1983. In fact as per existing policy of compassionate appointment contained in Circular dated 12.7.1977, the period of limitation for filing application for compassionate ground was only two years which got enhanced to five years in the year 1989, and therefore for the petitioner the period of limitation was only upto 25.10.1985 when he was aged about seven years. He being a minor his appointment could not have been possible as one of the condition of eligibility is also age restriction in the government policy. This aspect of the matter was 4 specifically gone into by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (Supra) and Ghanshyam Ram (supra) wherein after examining all possible facets including the very purpose of compassionate appointment and the scope of the government circular and policy dated 12.7.1977 and 5.10.1991, it was laid down that if the dependent of the deceased employee had not become major within the period of limitation i.e. two years till 1989 and five years thereafter, he will have no right of being considered for appointment on compassionate ground inasmuch as the scheme of compassionate appointment is not by way of reservation for the dependant of deceased employee to exercise his right as and when he would like to stake it after becoming major. As the two binding precedents of the Patna High Court on the same policy of compassionate appointment has not been considered by the Jharkhand High Court which was carved out from the parent Patna High Court in view of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 in any of the order produced by Mr. Ojha, this Court respectfully differ with the view taken therein inasmuch as all of them are per incurrium and must be held to be bad in law and at least not binding 5 on this Court. Additionally this Court must indicate that the view taken by Patna High Court in both the Division Bench judgments have been subsequently approved and reiterated by the Apex Court, in relation to the same policy of appointment on compassionate ground of the Government of Bihar in the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301 and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 wherein it has been held that since the immediate financial disruption in the dominating consideration, a dependent son who was 4 years of age at the time of his father’s death could not claim to be appointed on compassionate ground upon attaining majority. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)