Letters Patent Appeal No.1287 of 2000 (Against the order dated 14/8/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1221 of 2000) -------------- MD. SHABBIR KHAN -----Appellant Versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. -----Respondents ----------- For the petitioner-Appellant - Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Mr. Amir Alam For the Respondents - Mr. Piyush Lal, SC. to AAG-III. PR E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan, JJ. Writ petitioner-Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 14/8/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1221 of 2000 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the father of the writ petitioner-appellant (hererinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) was a Peon who died on 10/9/1986 while in service. After his death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and according to the prevalent practice, he was appointed as Mazdoor on daily wages, to - 2 - which post he joined on 17.12.1986. Respondent No. 3 Sri Suresh Nayak and respondent No. 4 Md. Narul Hooda were appointed as a regular Peon by order dated 30/11/1999 and 25/11/1999 respectively. It is relevant here to state that the petitioner earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 2163 of 1998 (Md. Shabbir Khan and Anr. Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr.) for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus to appoint him on a regular basis to a Class-IV post. This Court by order dated 22nd of December, 1992, dismissed the writ application. However, after the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 aforesaid on a regular basis, the writ petitioner filed the present writ application for quashing their appointment and also for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Peon with effect from 17.12.1986. By reason of the impugned order, said prayer of the writ petitioner has been dismissed and aggrieved by the same, he has preferred this appeal. Mr. Thakur, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed as Peon on a regular basis, there is no justification to appoint the writ petitioner as daily Mazdoor. He submits that the writ petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a regular Peon at least from the date of respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed. Mr. Piyush Lal appearing on behalf of the High Court, - 3 - however, contends that respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed after coming into force of the Patna High Court Officer and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rule 1997, and Rule 13 thereof enables Hon’ble the Chief Justice to make appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. He points out that at the time the writ petitioner was appointed, the aforesaid Rule was not in operation and the practice prevalent was to appoint as Mazdoor on daily wages. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Thakur. Writ petitioner cannot make any grievance of appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 to a Class-IV post as those appointments have taken place after coming into force of the Patna High Court Officer and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules 1999. Section 13 of the said Rules enables the Hon’ble Chief Justice to make appointment to a Class-IV post. We hasten to add that this enabling provision does not confer any right to claim appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. Undisputedly, writ petitioner’s appointment had taken place prior to coming into force of the said Rules. Not only this, the prayer made by the writ petitioner for appointment on a regular basis to a Class-IV post was dismissed by this Court by order dated 22nd of December, 1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2163 of 1998. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that - 4 - the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Peon cannot be faulted and further the writ petitioner has no right to be appointed as Class-IV post from the date he was appointed as daily Mazdoor. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge had not committed any error while passing the impugned order. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs. Patna High Court Dated, 3rd Sept.2008 NAFR/S.Ali (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)