IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8025 of 2009 BIRJU MAHTO, SON OF LATE BINO MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALHA, CIRCLE NO.4/3, P.O. MANSOORCHAK, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT SECTION, SAMASTIPUR. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 17.8.2009. Petitioner’s request to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Compassionate Committee, Samastipur vide Item No.24 of the memo no.1089 dated 26.9.2006 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Samastipur(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit)on the ground that on the date of consideration, he was 41 years 5 months and 5 days old as he was born on 15.4.1965 and the minimum age for such appointment in the Backward Class Category is 40 years. Close perusal of Item No.24 of the impugned memo dated 26.9.2006 would indicate that the case of the petitioner was earlier considered for such appointment on 29.5.2003 when the same was rejected on the ground that he lacked minimum qualification of having passed Class- 8 examination required for such appointment. - 2 - Such rejection was made on the basis of the certificate of the Headmaster of the School who erroneously certified that petitioner has passed Class-7 whereas petitioner had actually passed Class-8 from the said school. Later the Headmaster owned up his mistake and submitted further certificate indicting that petitioner has passed Class-8 and did person minimum qualification for such appointment on the date of consideration i.e. 29.5.2003. 2. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He states that rightly or wrongly the case of the petitioner was considered earlier on 29.5.2003 and rejected on the ground that he lacked minimum qualification for such appointment, then this Court should not pass any order in his favour. 3. I regret not to accept such submission as earlier rejection of the case of the petitioner on 29.5.2003 was on account of the mistake committed by the Headmaster, who initially furnished erroneous certificate and later realizing the mistake submitted further certificate owning up the mistake. - 3 - N.H./ For the mistake committed by the Headmaster, who is the agent of the State, petitioner cannot be held responsible. Accordingly, I direct the District Magistrate, Samastipur to reconsider the matter in the Appointment Committee taking into account the fact that the petitioner was not over age on 29.5.2003 and he had the minimum qualification for appointment on compassionate ground and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)