IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3444 of 2009 KRISHNA KUMAR Versus SRI KUMAR RAVI & ORS. ----------- 8/- 09.03.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order dated 08.09.2000 passed in M.J.C. No. 2086 of 1998, I observed that if the petitioner files an application for compassionate appointment before the District Magistrate, Supaul, the said authority will place the matter before the Compassionate Committee, which will consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. I further observed that a decision in this respect be taken up and communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of such application. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Compassionate Appointment Committee considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and recommended for his appointment on Class III post vide decision dated 09.02.2001. The State in its show cause stated that the Compassionate Appointment Committee recalled its 2 decision in view of Memo No. 2895 dated 07.08.2002, issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Birpur, wherein it was reported that petitioner is the son of second wife and the first wife being alive, would have the first claim. He submits that petitioner had not even obtained no objection from the first wife, Usha Devi. The petitioner submits that the decision was also not communicated to him which fact is controverted by the learned counsel for the State. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that if petitioner is aggrieved by the decision recalling or cancelling the earlier recommendation for appointment on the compassionate ground, he can challenge the same. With the aforesaid observation, this contempt application is disposed of. Anjani/ ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)