IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7581 of 2009 Md.Sami Ahmad Ansari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 05.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.5.2009 by which his younger brother respondent no. 7 has been recommended for appointment on a Class-III post after the demise of their father on 16.6.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he gave an application in time on 12.9.2007 before the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman of the Compassionate Appointment Committee at Darbhanga. He also informed the authorities that he was looking after the entire family. His younger brother however in collusion with the respondents has maneuvered orders in his favour. The petitioner had reconciled all differences with his brother on 26.7.2008 and filed a fresh application on 4.10.2008. His mother was acting under duress from the younger brother. His younger brother has played a fraud with him and the entire family. The petitioner’s age for employment in any Government service has expired. No sooner that his younger 2 brother gets a job he will solemnize a marriage after earning a handsome amount of dowry and will start living separately. Relying on a Bench decision in 2005(2) PLJR 183 (Sajjed Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) it was submitted that being the elder brother he had a preferential right to be considered for appointment over the younger brother. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It acknowledges recommending the name of the petitioner’s younger brother. The mother of the petitioner had the first right of appointment which she relinquished in favour of her younger son. The petitioner’s application was not in proper form but was a simple representation along with an affidavit. Conversely, respondent no. 7 had submitted an application in the prescribed manner. The petitioner’s mother had given in writing with regard to the conduct of the petitioner having faith in the younger brother who was looking after her. An appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the normal mode of appointment on competitive merit selection. Each time that an appointment on compassionate ground is made Article 14 stands violated as also Article 16 when 3 another eligible candidate is denied consideration only because he did not have the preferential descent of a deceased. Therefore, every claim for compassionate appointment has to be interpreted strictly in terms of any policy regulating the same. Principles of sympathy and family rivalry shall have no application to such consideration. Such issues will have to be agitated before a normal Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any policy decision of the State Government that the elder brother had a preferential right to be considered and only if he declines can any other son be considered. Even otherwise the Court has serious doubts about it in the nature of the appointment being provided to the family. After the death of the deceased the identity of his wife and her status, seniority and dignity in the family cannot be wiped away by her son to urge that what she may desire is irrelevant. Her dignity must survive. The Court finds it difficult to read anything more into the policy then what the policy actually reads. If compassionate appointment is provided to a family member at the request of the wife of the deceased to her satisfaction when she relinquishes her own claim in favour of another 4 family member, can it be said that the authorities were acting unreasonably, arbitrarily and illogically in considering her request. The Court finds it difficult to arrive at any such conclusion demeaning the status and dignity of the widow only because she may be dependent on other aspects upon her son. If there is any sibling rivalry in a claim for compassionate appointment which is not an inheritable right forming a part of the estate of the deceased, the observations of the Division Bench in 2004(2) PLJR 453 ( Vishal Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) are appropriate:- “4. The Court is afraid, this logic of law will not apply for if there will be rivalry within the family as in the present case between the father and the son or between siblings, a job can be offered on the principle of compassionate appointment only to one person and when one is gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment” The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)