IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2401 of 2010 1. LALATI DEVI W/O LATE RAMASHISH PASWAN(WIDOW) R/O VILL SULEMANPUR,P.S.KAKO,DISTT-JEHANABAD 2. RAJ KUMAR PASWAN S/O LATE RAMASHISH PASWAN R/O VILL SULENANPUR,P.S.KAKO,DISTT-JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JEHANABAD 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JEHANABAD 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KAKO,JEHANABAD 5. S.H.O. POLICE STATION KAKO,JEHANABAD ----------- 2. 17.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The claim in this application for compassionate appointment is on behalf of the son-in-law supported by the mother-in-law and other family members. Strong reliance is placed on an order of this Court in CWJC no. 10780 of 2001 directing consideration of the son-in-law for compassionate appointment in view of minority of the son of the deceased not objected to by the other family members. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it has been held that any appointment on compassionate ground therefore has to be strictly in terms of the policy regulating the same. In State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Karampal Sahu (2009) 11 SCC 453 it has been held at paragraphs 11 & 12 as follows:- “11. The scheme for grant of monetary compensation to the dependants of the deceased or injured who are affected in any kind of terrorist/virulent/communal attack must be considered in terms of the stipulations made in the circular letters containing policy decisions. Appointment on compassionate grounds, it is trite, must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such schemes cannot be given an expansive meaning as the constitutional scheme envisages that all persons who are entitled to be considered for appointment would be eligible for being considered therefor. Any policy decision for appointment on compassionate grounds must, therefore, receive a strict construction. 12. In State of J & K Vs. Sajad Ahmad Mir1 the law was laid down in the following terms: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought „compassion‟, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sector should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say „goodbye‟ to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution”. It is not open for the Courts on compassion or sympathy to direct consideration for compassionate appointment de hors the policy for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that the policy framed by the State Government for compassionate appointment contemplated consideration of the case of a son-in-law also. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)