IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15365 of 2006 Sarjan Singh, son of late Dhanraj Singh, resident of village- Janakpuriya, P.S. Chauri, District- Bhojpur (Arah)… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector-cum-Chairman, District Compassioinate Committee, Muzaffarpur 3. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Muzaffarur ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha,Advocate Mr. Amarnath Singh,Advocate For the State: Mr. S.S. Mishra, A.C. to G.A. 5 --- 2. 29.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities for his appointment on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner was a Class- IV employee and died while in service on 17.1.2005. The petitioner thereafter filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground on 27.4.2005. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur on 5.10.2007 and it was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has two wives. The petitioner in his reply to the counter - 2 - affidavit has not contested the said fact of his having two wives, rather he has admitted the same and has given reasons for marrying the second time with the consent of his first wife. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision in the Circular of the Government to deny appointment on compassionate ground only on the ground that the applicant has contracted two marriages. It is further submitted by him that the authorities could not have relied upon the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act for disqualifying the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for interfering with the decision of the District Compassionate Committee. The provision of Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 prohibits a Government servant from marrying twice. If the Government servant is found to have two wives then it is open to the Government to proceed against the Government servant for having committed a misconduct. For such misconduct he can be removed from service. That being the position, there sould - 3 - be no induction into Government employment of someone who from before has already two wives living. Nothing can be more anomalous than such an appointment. I am supported in taking the aforesaid view by a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court ( Aftab Alam, J. as His Lordship then was ) in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar & ors.: 2002 (2) PLJR 253, in which in similar circumstance he has rejected the case of the petitioner of that case and did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities of the State. In paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 of the said decision it has been held as follows: “7.Apart from this a person selected for appointment before being allowed to join, is required to make certain declarations in writing which also include declaration regarding his marital status. In terms of government circular No.13293, dated 5.10.1991 a person being appointed on compassionate grounds too is required to make the same declarations as any - 4 - other person being appointed in the normal course. In other words a person being appointed on compassionate grounds is required to make declaration in writing regarding his marital status. The petitioner obviously cannot make a declaration that he has a single wife and the moment he states that he has two wives, he would land himself in the position of an employee guilty of a misconduct. Thus, his position would be that of a delinquent even before he joins the service. 8. Further, public policy is strongly opposed to bigamy and the courts, therefore, should take a view discouraging the practice of bigamy. 9. For the reasons discussed above, I am unable to find any infirmity in the decision not to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. No, relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to - 5 - costs.” In view of the aforesaid established legal position, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )