IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4084 of 2010 1. MUKESH KUMAR S/O LATE CHANDRADEV THAKUR R/O VILL HULASPATTI,P.O.JALESHWAR ASTHAN,P.S. FULPRAS,DISTT-MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER ,DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE BIHAR,PATNA 3. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE BIHAR,PATNA 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.)DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE BIHAR,PATNA 5. JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE(JUTE) null BIHAR,PURNEA 6. ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR (JUTE) PURNEA ----------- 02. 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in the application is to be considered for compassionate appointment and consequent appointment in pursuance of the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 27.10.2009. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was deceased in service on 19.7.2008. Recommendation for a Class-III post having been made, it is required to be implemented. It is next submitted that the departmental proceedings initiated against the father of the petitioner remained inconclusive before his death and therefore, it cannot be held that he was guilty. Considering his otherwise satisfactory service, which is the only requirement under the policy for compassionate appointment, petitioner’s mother has been given post retrial-cum- 2 death benefits on her deceased husband. Learned counsel for the State submits that the father of the petitioner was made an accused under Section 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 236 of 2007, registered on 2.5.2007 for alleged embezzlement of Government money approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- along with another. A basic pre-requisite for appointment on compassionate ground is satisfactory service of the deceased. If he had been made an accused for embezzlement of Government money and a departmental proceeding had also been started, that he may have been deceased during the pendency of the same, shall not tantamount to a clean service record. Compassionate appointment was not a right. In normal circumstances, every appointment on compassionate ground violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when it shuts out from consideration another eligible applicant on merits. But, in view of the Government policies for compassionate appointment, the Courts have permitted a limited inroad into it but on a strict construction. A claim for compassionate appointment is a weak claim. Even if the policy does not contain a specific clause for satisfactory service, this Court does not consider that 3 objection on behalf of the State as arbitrary or unreasonable. The question is, if the reason being furnished before the Court is acceptable or unacceptable by process of a legal reasoning. It cannot be held to be an unreasonable ground or arbitrary ground. Beyond that, the court shall not go into the sufficiency of the reasoning, if the Court is satisfied that a reason exists and which is not unreasonable or arbitrary. It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to substitute its own views for that of the employer to hold that merely because the employee may have been under a cloud and the cloud could not be dispelled during his lifetime shall render his heirs eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment when the employer does not wish to do so. It cannot be lost sight that the petitioner did not come with clean hands and did not inform the Court that his father was also an accused in a criminal case. It was left for the respondents to disclose the same in their counter affidavit. In the entirety of the matter, this Court does not find it possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)