IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3939 of 2008 RAM BACHAN YADAV, S/O LATE NATHUNI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-FATEHPUR, P.O. MAURI, P.S. PALIGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA.. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, KOSHI DIVISION PURNEA. 5.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR CUM CHAIRMAN, COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, KATIHAR. 6.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. 7.HEADMASTER, RAJKIYA BUNIYADI VIDYALAYA, BHANGHA, KATIHAR. 8.SONA DEVI, W/O LATE NATHUNI YADAV. 9.RAM BHAWAN NIRALA, S/O LATE NATHUNI YADAV. BOTH R/O VILLAGE FATEHPUR, P.O. MAURI, P.S. PALIGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. .............RESPONDENTS. --------- 02/ 20.04.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the Official respondents have already appointed respondent no. 9 on compassionate ground, this Court would find it difficult to issue a direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, both the petitioner and respondent no. 9 are the sons of the deceased employee, late Nathuni Yadav. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the elder son of the deceased Government employee 2 and should have been preferred in the matter of appointment to his younger brother. Respondent no. 9 has also to be considered in the backdrop, that the widow of the deceased employee namely mother of the petitioner and the petitioner himself had reposed confidence in respondent no. 9 and had given their consent for appointment of respondent no. 9 on compassionate ground. Such conduct of the mother of the petitioner can also not be even remotely questioned, inasmuch as, when the petitioner had subsequently filed an application for his own appointment on compassionate ground, he had altogether omitted the name of the dependent family member including his own mother and brother. In that view of the matter this Court would not find any error even in the decision taken by the official respondents in appointing respondent no. 9 on compassionate ground in preference to the petitioner. It however goes without saying that as the petitioner claims to be the dependent son of the deceased Government employee, he too will have to be maintained, in case he has got no independent source of income, from 3 the salary received by respondent no. 9 as the appointment of respondent no. 9 has been done on his undertaking that he will maintain all the dependent family members of the deceased Government employee. With the aforementioned observations this application is dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)