IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15154 of 2005 Shamsuzzama SON OF LATE MD. ALI AKBAR, RESIDENT OF GARHIYA, P.O. UDAYPUR, BITHUAAR, P.S. PANDAUL, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali & Miss Avnita For Madarsa Board :- M/S. Md. Rashid Alam & Mahtab Alam, ------ 4 22/12/2011 Father of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Madarsa Mohammadia Arbia Bhagwatipur, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani. He was appointed way back by the Managing Committee of the said Madarsa in the year 1977. He died in harness on 23.12.2001. A claim has now been made by the son who is the petitioner before this Court that the respondents are illegally denying him the benefit of compassionate appointment in the said Madarsa when there are government circulars supporting such a claim as would be evident from the Circular dated 5.10.1991 which has not been marked as annexure but is available as part of the record at page 30 of the brief. Emphasis, however, is on paragraph 11 of the said circular reflected at page 33 which is reproduced here-in-below:- “(11) IS PARIPATRA KI PRABHAV - 2 - SEEMA __ YEH PARIPATRA RAJYA SARKAR KE ADHINASTH SABHI LOK UPKARMON, SWASHASI NIKAYON, PRADHIKARON, NIGAMON, PARSHADON TATHA RAJYA SAMPOSHIT SANSTHAON PAR BHI PURNROOP SE LAGU SAMJHA JAYEGA. “ The thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that every Madarsa which has been given recognition by the State Government is also being funded by the State Government through Madarsa Board and there is a statutory legislation in place which has been created by the State of Bihar to put an over all supervision with regard to functioning of such Madarsa. The Act in question is Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act, 1981. The contention is that even the Madarsa would be covered under the scheme of the compassionate appointment issued by the government because Madarsa is also aided and supported by the Government and is a Swasi Nikaya, if not a Samposhit Sanstha. Stand of the respondents representing Madarsa Board is that Madarsa in question is an independent entity into the hands of private Managing Committee which has full freedom to run its affair guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Engagement of - 3 - any employee by the said Managing Committee is the internal affair of the Managing Committee of that Madarsa. Neither the Board nor the State Government exercises any authority into day-to-day affairs of the Managing Committee unless the Managing Committee is being run in breach of any law or if there is any allegation of misuse of the office or the funding which is done by the State. So far as claim of the present petitioner is concerned, his father can never be treated to be a government employee; muchless even an employee under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and compassionate appointment policy cannot be extended to the institutions of the kind which are in the hands of private Managing Committee because that will be in direct conflict of the Constitutional provision in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not push the matter on the score whether the father of the petitioner was a government employee or akin to a government employee. Emphasis of his submission is based on the fact that there is funding by the State Government and such circular; especially clause 7 may - 4 - bring the said Madarsa within the ambit of such a provision. With due respect to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Circular has to be read in its entirety and not in isolation. The object of providing compassionate appointment cannot be extended to domestic affairs of any Institution merely because certain funds flow into that institution either through the State agency or agency created by the State in this regard. A look at even Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act would show that the Board exercises control over such Madarsa with the object of augmenting and maintaining standard of Madarsa education and nothing more. In that view of the matter, the attribute which the petitioner is looking for in his favour to beget him the provision of compassionate appointment is absent and, therefore, no case for consideration for compassionate appointment is made out in this regard. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)