IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7912 of 2005 1. Hit Lal Sahani, son of late Janj Bahadur Sahani, resident of Village Kharhar Gosainpur, P.S. Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 4. District Officer-cum-President, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Muzaffarpur. 5. Regional Deputy Director, Muzaffarpur. 6. District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur. --------- Respondents ----------- 5 28.03.2011 Heard Mr. K.N. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 26.7.2004 as contained in Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the Establishment of Compassionate Appointment Committee on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner was not submitted within the prescribed period. Mr. Diwakar has submitted that it is true that the petitioner had filed the application in the prescribed proforma as per the Government resolution dated 5.10.1991 only on 4.11.2003 but, then, earlier to that, 2 he had filed an application on plain paper on 10.1.2002. In support thereof, he relied on a copy of such application as contained in Annexure-3. Counsel for the State on the other hand has produced the copy of the application filed by the petitioner which would go to show that such application was filed by the petitioner in the prescribed proforma on 4.11.2003. The prescribed proforma contains a number of information and also the details of the dependant family members with all inputs of the income of the family. It further requires certain verification to be made as per part-2 of the prescribed proforma. Thus, the Government has laid down the prescribed proforma in the Circular dated 5.10.1991 which prescribes the mode and manner in which such application has to be filed. Admittedly, such application was filed by the petitioner on 4.11.2003, which also could have been sent by the controlling authority of the father of the petitioner to the Establishment of Compassionate Appointment Committee. The Establishment of Compassionate Appointment 3 Committee had, therefore, before it the only application of the petitioner dated 4.11.2003 and it, having been found the date of death of the father of the petitioner as 4.10.1997, has not committed any error in rejecting the same by holding it to be time barred as a period fixed in the Government Circular for filing such application for appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed proforma is only five years. As with regard to the contention of Mr. Diwakar of the application having been filed by the petitioner on 10.1.2002, this Court would find that first of all it is a copy of typed application incapable of being verified in absence of any receipt granted by the District Collector. Let it be noted that such application which, in fact, was not to be filed before the District Collector but, only before the authority under whose control the father of the petitioner was working. Additionally, this Court would find that Annexure-3 though said to be dated 10.1.2002 was accompanying vague undertaking of the wife of the deceased 4 employee, the mother of the petitioner in the date of 14.11.2003, wherein, she had allegedly opted for employment of the petitioner in preference to her younger son. The requirement of filing such an affidavit is part of the requirement of prescribed proforma and, therefore, if Annexure-3/A has been claimed to be the part of Annexure-3 dated 10.1.2002, there appears to be something which is not palatable. This Court, however, would not want to make any further comment on this aspect as if the petitioner is so sanguine of about filing of both of Annexure 3 and 3A before expiry of the period of limitation, he can always file civil suit where these disputed question of fact can be gone into. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)