IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6912 of 2009 SHARAWAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE MUNSHI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JAHANGIRPUR, P.O. BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S. BIDUPUR (BLOCK), DISTRICT-VAISHALI (BIHAR) ………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Budh Marg, Patna-1 3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Budh Marg, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Education Officer, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 6. The Chairman, District Compassionate Committee-cum-District Magistrate, Hajipur, District- Vaishali. 7. The District Superintendent of Education , Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 8. The Headmaster , Rajkiya Madhya Vidhyalaya, DaudNagar, District- Vaishali. 9. Shyam Nath Mahto(peon), S/o Late Munshi Mahto, Rajkiyakrit Uchaya Vidhalaya Chandpura (Bidupur), District- Vaishali …………… Respondents. ----------- 2. 29.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.12.2008 issued by the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur and the order dated 04.07.2008 issued by respondent No. 5 affirming the appointment of respondent No. 9 on compassionate ground. Respondent No. 9 as well as the petitioner, both are said to be son of late Munshi Mahto who died in harness, working as peon in Prithvi Singh Uchaya Vidayalaya, Jahangirpur in the district of Vaishali. He left behind the widow, four sons and two daughters as his legal heirs. Both the daughters were married. It transpires that considering the family list approved and issued by the Circle Officer as well as affidavit sworn by the family members in favour of one of the sons, Shyam Nath Mahto, he was appointed on compassionate ground in the year, 2003. 2 Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application claiming his appointment on compassionate ground in place of respondent No. 9 saying that he is the eldest son of the deceased, Late Munshi Mahto, as such, appointment of respondent No. 9 was unwarranted and arbitrary. His application was not considered by the authorities, as such, he came before this court and filed C.W.J.C. No. 14057 of 2004 which was disposed of by order dated 12.03.2007. By this order, the matter was remitted back. On perusal of the order passed in earlier writ application, it transpires that on earlier occasion, counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent-state, specifically stating that the petitioner had never applied for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law , as such, there was no reason to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. However, respondent No. 5 was directed to consider the application of the petitioner issuing show cause notice to the respondent No.9. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that as per direction of this court, notice was issued to respondent No. 9. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 9 were assigned opportunity to place their cases along with the document in support of their claim. Each and every document was considered. In the last paragraph of the order, it is stated that allegation made by the petitioner regarding submission of forged list of the family members by Shyam Nath Mahto is incorrect rather the Anchaladhikari has 3 certified that list of family members which was furnished by Shyam Nath Mahto is correct and that is part of the record. I do not find any reason to entertain this application, simply on this count that the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased. Petitioner has got no legal right to be appointed on compassionate ground for this reason that he was the eldest. No one can claim Compassionate appointment as a matter of right. It is an assistance given to the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness, in case at the relevant time, the family is suffering from financial hardships and there is no one in the family to give any financial assistance to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. For being appointed on compassionate ground, it is also essential that other legal heirs of the deceased employee should file an affidavit in favour of one of such legal heir, claiming to be appointed on compassionate ground. In the present case, this was done in favour of Shyam Nath Mahto at the relevant time and considering everything, he was legally appointed on compassionate ground in place of his father. I do not find any reason to interfere with the matter. However, if subsequently, petitioner felt tempted to be appointed on compassionate ground. In fact, he has no legal and valid right for filing such application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )