IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17153 of 2009 1. EHSANUL HASSAN S/O LATE S.M.RIZWANUL HASSAN R/O MOH- BELAN BAZAR BANGALI TOLA, MUNGER, P.S- KASIM BAZAR, DISTT- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, MUNGER 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR WELFARE, DISTT- MUNGER 4. MD. SHAHNABAJUL HASSAN S/O LATE S.M. RIZWANUL HASSAN, R/O B-785, SADARPUR COLONY, SECTOR-45, NEAR KHAJURWALI MASJID, NOIDA (U.P) ----------- 2. 3.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, son of the second wife of the deceased applied for compassionate appointment. His name was recommended by the committee on 19.12.2007. Before he could be appointed, objections were filed by his step brother born from the first wife. The recommendation has then been cancelled on 5.10.2009. While a mere recommendation for appointment does not fructify into a legal right in itself, still there have to be a cogent and justifiable reasons for not doing so. If the step brother of the petitioner, stated to be the elder to him was not an applicant claiming compassionate appointment, the question of rejecting the claim of the petitioner on any other controversies sought to be created and which do not affect his eligibility to be considered on its own merits, cannot preclude consideration of the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance 2 of the recommendation dated 19.12.2007. The recitals in the order dated 5.10.2009 does not appear to be very clear but is suggestive of dispute between the two brothers in a claim for compassionate appointment. If there be competing claims between them, the matter will become entirely different to be covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 453. If his step brother is not an applicant, the Division Bench judgment shall have no application, when the matter shall have to be decided by the respondents accordingly. Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order be passed by respondent no. 2, within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till such decision be arrived at, the impugned order dated 5.10.2009 shall remain in abeyance only in so far as the petitioner is concerned and shall then merge with such find order that may be passed. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)