IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6514 of 2011 Anita Nankani, D/o Late Dayal Das Nankani, C/o. C.B.Choudhary, Shaid Nagar, South of Kali Asthan(Laheria Sarai), P.S. Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee- cum-District Establishment Head, Darbhanga. 6. Additional Collector, Establishment, Darbhanga 7. Dy. Collector, Establishment, Darbhanga Collectorate, Darbhanga. Opposite parties/Respondents For the petitioner : Mr.Suresh Chandra Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, AAG2 Mr.Alok Kumar Rahi, A.C. to AAG2 04 05.12.2011 The present writ petition has been filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation by one Anita Nankani, seeking a direction upon the concerned authority to enquire in the matter of compassionate appointment alleging malpractices adopted in the district of Darbhanga and also acting contrary to the circulars/Rules made by the State Government in this regard. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of such scheme/policy are not made available to the needy persons who are economically oppressed and also to those belonging to weaker sections of the Society as their cases has not been considered and rejected on erroneous grounds. We have gone through the records and the Scheme formulated by the Government in the matter of compassionate 2 appointment. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is with reference to the procedure adopted by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to different individuals. Certain examples have been cited with regard to non-preparation of panel from the date of death of deceased as per qualification of the candidate which can be seen from the statement made at sub paragraph i) at page 56 in the writ petition. The petitioner does not file such materials as Annexure with the writ petition though different minutes of the Appointment Committee from the year 1995 to 2010, which has taken place on different dates obtained under Right to Information Act, are appended to the writ petition. Even though it is a case where the State has not filed the counter affidavit in spite of opportunity given on 11.4.2011 and again on 16.09.2011 but the learned counsel for the State has submitted that although certain instructions have been received from the District authorities of Darbhanga which are not sufficient and, therefore, the counter affidavit could not be filed. On perusal of the materials on record it would appear that individual cases have been cited at different paragraphs where the petitioner has alleged that the procedure 3 as contemplated for appointment on compassionate ground has not been followed by the District Appointment Committee, but, however, it is for the parties to approach this Court, if there is any complaint. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner if so desired, may file a representation before the concerned Respondent authorities highlighting all the grounds taken in the writ petition for redressal of his grievance. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. Chandran (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)