IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18493 of 2011 Chandeswari Tatma S/o Late Ramdeo Tatma R/o Village- Khaira, P.S.-Falka, District-Katihar ----------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Collector, Katihar, District-Katihar. 2. Deputy Collector, Incharge, District General Section, Katihar Having His Office At Collectorate Compound, District-Katihar. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Katihar, District-Katihar. 4. Circle Officer, Falka, District-Katihar. ---------------------------------- 2 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Katihar vide communication contained in annexure-1. The reason for rejection is that the claim of the petitioner is not only barred by time but even his educational qualification seems to be forged. Father of the petitioner was murdered in the year 2000. Present petitioner became an accused along with some other persons for the murder of father of the petitioner. He was tried and exonerated of the charge in absence of proper evidence having been produced in support of the charge on behalf of the prosecution. Order of acquittal is dated 16.11.2006. Petitioner filed application for compassionate appointment thereafter which now stands rejected. Merely because petitioner was made an accused and may have even suffered incarceration during some period in question cannot be made a ground for condoning the delay in filling application for compassionate appointment after the period of five years, which has been fixed in terms of the policy. Death occurred in the year 2000. Application obviously has been made after his acquittal much thereafter if not a decade and half. Object of compassionate 2 appointment is not to provide employment through the back door mechanism but is to reach out to the family in distress due to sudden death of the bread earner. If that object is kept in mind then obviously the claim of the petitioner is barred by time and rejection on that ground cannot be said to be arbitrary decision against the petitioner, whatever be his explanation in not lodging his claim in time. This writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)