IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11088 of 2006 Pardeep Kumar Sharma, son of late Ratan Sharma, resident of Mohalla Langar Toli, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District Patna, at present of Mohalla Nehru Chak, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Health Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Patna. 3. Head Clerk, Shri Surendra Singh, Block Development Officer, Barh, Patna. 4. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, 2nd son of late Shyampati Devi of Mohalla Langar Toli, Kadam Kuan, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 29.6.2011 The petitioner’s grievance with regard to his being elbowed out in the process of appointment on compassionate ground after death of his mother by allowing the respondent no.4, the elder brother of the petitioner, prima-facie does not seem to be correct. There is no semblance of a right in the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground inasmuch as, the Government policy dated 5.10.1991 itself prescribes the order of preference for such appointment amongst the four categories of dependants of the deceased government servant in descending order namely, the wife, the son, the unmarried daughter and the widow of the pre-deceased son. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior 2 counsel for the petitioner however submits that in the present case, the four brothers of the family, after the death of the mother, the bread earner, the deceased employee, had unanimously resolved that it is the petitioner, who will represent the interest of the family by getting himself appointed on compassionate ground but the respondent no.4 had duped the authorities by producing a forged document showing the consent of the family members in his favour for his appointment on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appointment of the respondent no.4, being the eldest eligible son for appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be objected by the petitioner only on account of the consent but, then, if the respondent no.4 has produced any forged document, this much can definitely be looked into by the competent authority and if it is found that it is such a forged document, which has led to the appointment of the respondent no.4, an appropriate action can also be taken against him. 3 It is, however, made clear that if such an appointment was made pursuant to the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, as is apparent from perusal of Annexure 1/A and that the consent of the petitioner or the family members was not the guiding factor leading to the appointment of the petitioner, the authority will reject such claim of the petitioner inasmuch, obtaining consent of the dependent family members is not a mandatory condition for appointment on compassionate ground in the policy of the government contained in Circular dated 5.10.1991. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)