IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6212 of 2007 BAJRANGI RAM,S/O LATE ACHCHHA LAL (SWEEPER), R/O VILLAGE-EAST DAHIYAN, P.O- CHHAPARA, P.S.-CHHAPARA TOWN, DISTRICT- SARAN(CHHAPARA). ………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE(SARAN)CHHAPRA. 4.DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, SARAN, CHHAPRA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 01.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground dated 28.05.2005, vide Annexure-5, to this writ application does not suffer from any error, inasmuch as, when the mother of the petitioner was still alive and was in Government service, the petitioner could not have been appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the Government policy of compassionate appointment laid down in the Government Circular dated 05.10.1991. Counsel for the petitioner would not doubt the aforementioned proposition as with regard to the applicability of the Government policy but then he would submit that there were certain exceptions made by the appointing authority in past and therefore, when the case 2 of the petitioner was rejected on 28.05.2005, he also filed his representation on 21.12.2005, whereafter the Collector of the district by his letter dated 04.02.2006, had directed him to adduce evidence in support of the facts mentioned in his representation. Counsel for the petitioner is not aware as to what had happened thereafter, though this writ petition was filed on 10.05.2007 i.e., almost 15 months after the notice was issued to him for adducing evidence in support of his claim. As usual the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and counsel for the state has also got no instructions in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground dated 28.05.2005, the mother of the petitioner has also subsequently died and therefore, the case of the petitioner now after the death of her mother becomes mature for considering his appointment on compassionate ground. The subsequent event of the death of the mother of the petitioner cannot be a ground 3 for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2005, inasmuch as, on that day the mother of the petitioner was alive. Subsequent death of mother of the petitioner has given new cause of action, and if the petitioner, so likes, he may approach the competent authority for reconsideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. It would be also open to the petitioner to pursue the internal remedy to which he has resorted by filing his representation dated 21.12.2005(Annexure-8) in response whereof the Collector had also asked him to adduce evidence by his notice dated 04.02.2006 (Annexure-9). With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)