IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2794 of 2011 SITA RAM @ SITA RAM HARIJAN S/O LATE MANU LAL HARIJAN OF VILLAGE-BARIJAN, PO-JASHIBARI, PS KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT- KISHANGANJ--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KISHANGANJ 4. THE B.D.O. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT- KISHANGANJ 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PS-KOCHADHAMAN,DISTT- KISHANGANJ 6. WIFE OF LATGE KISHAN LAL HARIJAN S/O NAHAWAT LAL HARIJAN, R/O TUPAMARI PS-KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT- KISHANGANJ-----------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 5.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ application has been filed for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on the death of his father who was working as Dafadar. His father died in the year 1987. Application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner addressed to District Magistrate, Kishanganj is dated 2nd November, 2010. From perusal of annexure-2 what emerges is that on the death of the father of the petitioner his brother- in-law managed to get compassionate appointment. Allegation made in the application is that this was a fraudulent act committed by him. He too died a couple of months before annexure-2 was filed. With the brother-in-law out of the way the petitioner feels that he has an open passage for appointment on compassionate ground because his father was a Dafadar. The Court with certain constraint must record that no assistance has been rendered on the various points which the Court put to learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue. (1) - 2 - Whether the father of the petitioner was a government servant? If not then how come a compassionate appointment can be claimed because the State of Bihar for the first time conferred the status of a civil post only after 1990. Prior to that Dafadar’s post was inheritable right under old Choukidari Manual. The second question is whether the petitioner has right to claim appointment on compassionate ground after more than 23 years of the death of his father and whether such claim is entertainable in terms of the policy laid down by the State of Bihar? The answer is obvious “NO”. The third question for which there was no satisfactory explanation is how come the petitioner never raised any grievance earlier or when did the petitioner get knowledge that his brother-in-law has turned out to be the son of his father to claim the benefit of compassionate appointment. All these facts put together in no manner helps the petitioner to get what he is looking for. Since the counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been served and filed today, the Court intentionally does not want to delve into more interesting facts which have emerged in this issue because the petitioner cannot be pined down to answer things in such a short time frame. The Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter to file rejoinder because if the petitioner can not succeed on the set of facts noted above on the threshold, based on his pleadings then the - 3 - materials brought on record in the counter affidavit will only make them murky for him. It is an ill advised writ application without there being any right of any kind existing in favour of the petitioner to beget any kind of appointment under compassionate head. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)