IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11140 of 2007 JITENDRA KUMAR son of late Khedan Mahto, resident of village- Dahark, P. S. Ramgarh, District Kaimur (Bhabhua). …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Police ( Personal), Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military Police ( Central Division), Bihar, Patna. 5. The Commandant, B. M. P. 10, Patna. 6. District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was entertained and he was appointed against a Class IV post. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he ought not to have been appointed against a Class IV post inasmuch as the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had recommended for his appointment against a Class III post. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no indefeasible right in any person to claim compassionate appointment against a particular post. Thus, even when the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner against a Class III post, the authorities could have very 2 well appointed him on whatsoever vacancy was available to them at that point of time and if the petitioner’s appointment has already been made against a Class IV posts that should be the end of the matter. Similar argument as sought to be advanced in this case was rejected by the Full Bench in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar reported in 2010(3)PLJR 294 wherein it was held that mere recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee would not bind the appointing authority in appointing even against a lower post. The petitioner has already been appointed against a Class IV post and he should be happy with such appointment. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would raise a plea of hostile discrimination inasmuch as it is said that while the petitioner was denied appointment on such a Class III post on the ground of there being no vacancy against Class III posts, others were appointed against Class III posts in the same establishment. The question of hostile discrimination can definitely be gone into in the matter of public employment but then appointment on compassionate ground, which 3 seeks to achieve the laudable object of putting an end to the sudden crisis created on account of death of the government earning member of the family, cannot be equated with other appointments. If the petitioner was so aggrieved, he ought not to have joined the post offered to him and could have continued to agitate his claim for a Class III post. The petitioner having accepted appointment on Class IV post cannot be now allowed to raise a challenge against other appointments on Class III posts, specially when he has not impleaded any such person as a party respondent to this case. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)