CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12276 of 2006 ****** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ******* Sikandar Choudhary, S/o late Garibchand Choudhary, resident of Village- Laxmanpur Bathe, P.S. Parasi, District- Arwal. …. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary, Home Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 4. District Magistrate, Arwal. .... .... Respondents. ****** For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, AC to SC 14. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ******* S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition has been preferred by one of the victims of mass massacre of the community of the petitioner where he lost his wife and two small daughters, with the prayer to direct the State Government to give him appointment as per the policy decision announced by the State Government, after quashing the order dated 4.3.2002 (Annexure-4), whereby the benefit has been denied to him. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. On 1.12.1997, mass massacre of members of scheduled caste had taken place at village Laxmanpur Bathe, district- Jehanabad (now district Arwal). The petitioner’s 2 family was a victim of the mass massacre. A brief genealogy of the family is indicated hereinbelow: Late Garibchand Choudhary (died on 1.12.1997) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Lakhandar Choudhary Late Mahendra Sikandar Choudhary Ladoo Dudha Nath job given Choudhary, died (25 years) D/B 1.1.1972 Choudhary Choudhary | wife & 2 children died Vakil Choudhary on 1.12.1997 Garibchand Choudhary, Mahendra Choudhary, and the wife and two children of Sikandar Choudhary (petitioner herein) died. 2.1) The Chief Minister of the State and others visited the site on 3.12.1997, and announced a package of relief to the bereaved families. The relief package, inter-alia, included cash benefits to the victims, houses, and appointment in Government service. It is the last one which is in question in the present proceeding. It is further relevant to state that Lakhandar Choudhary and Vakil Choudhary were provided with the Government jobs. Sikandar Choudhary approached the authorities for appointment in Government service which has been denied by the impugned order on the ground that one job had to be provided to each family. In fact, two jobs have been provided in the family of Garibchand Choudhary and, therefore, the petitioner’s request for appointment has been rejected, leading to the present writ petition. 3 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us in original the petitioner’s matriculation certificate according to which he was borne on 1.1.1972, which means that he was 25 years and 11 months on the date of the massacre. In other words, he was an able-bodied person, capable of pursuing his own livelihood. In fact, one may venture to presume that, in view of the position that he had a wife and two small daughters on that day, he must have been usefully engaged in life. Secondly, it appears to us on a perusal of the materials placed before us that one person of every bereaved family had to be provided with the Government job. Indeed two dependents of the family of late Garibchand Choudhary were provided with jobs. Indeed we are prima-facie left with a feeling that Lakhandar Choudhary was not entitled to a job. We, however, do not wish to express ourselves finally in his absence, and also because the same is not for our consideration before us. 4. It is further relevant to state that the Supreme Court has in a long line of cases on the issues relating to appointment on compassionate ground observed that such schemes for compassionate appointment should not be treated to be wind-fall to the family of the deceased. It has also been stated therein that it 4 can be given to the heirs only where the family has, on account of demise of the Government employee been left high and dry in life, to meet the minimum needs of the family, and can be given only in a situation where the family is in indigent circumstances. We have found hereinabove that the petitioner was on the date of massacre an able-bodied person, capable of earning his livelihood. Another important aspect of the matter is that, as stated hereinabove, he was 25years and 11 months of age on that date and should now be more than 39 years of age. The Supreme Court has also observed in its authoritative pronouncements that appointment on compassionate ground is meant to meet the immediate needs of the family, and will be presumed to have taken care of with lapse of time provided the delay is not attributable to the authorities. In the present case, apart from the lapse of time, we are clearly of the view that no delay or inaction is attributable to the authorities. 5. There is yet another aspect of the matter which must be indicated. The petitioner has, on the strength of partition-deed in the family, tried to persuade us that the petitioner had separated from late Garibchand Choudhary, his father and, therefore, should be treated to be separate from his father. We have gone through the documents and are prima-facie of the view that it is a got-up document in support of the writ petition. Law is well settled that a 5 person, who has not invoked the writ jurisdiction with clean hands, is disentitled from seeking any relief. 6. It is further relevant to state that, under the scheme, the petitioner had received cash compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs), and a house . 7. We do not find any merit in this writ petition It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) Vikash Jain, J. I agree. (Vikash Jain, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 29th day of July, 2011. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR).