IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1259 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR DAS, SON OF LATE RANJIT KUMAR DAS, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MILLAN PALLI, P.O. AND P.S. KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ, BIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL RESOURCES DIRECTORATE, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, KISHANGANJ. 7. THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, KISHANGANJ THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ. 8. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ. ----------- 2. 22.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The father of the petitioner died in harness. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The claim is based on a recommendation and confirmation for Class-III post but contrary to the same appointment being made on Class-IV post which the petitioner joined on 23.8.2006. Learned counsel submits that subsequently nearly one year after the petitioner joined another person has been appointed on a Class-III post who had lesser qualifications than the petitioner. An appointment on compassionate - 2 - ground has been considered as an exception to the normal mode of appointment by open advertisement and selection on competitive merit required by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Every appointment on compassionate ground violates this constitutional mandate. The Courts have therefore interpreted the scheme for compassionate appointment strictly. The effect of one compassionate appointment is denial of even the right to consideration to another who may be equally qualified if not better suited and more useful to the employer than those given compassionate appointment. The only object of compassionate appointment is to aid the family in penury by sudden loss of the bread winner so that it is able to make ends meet. It is not a mode of appointment to claim parity with those who come in through a proper process of selection on competitive merit. The Supreme Court in 1996(2) PLJR 199 (SC), State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Samsuz Zhoha etc. has held that no such directions can be given by the High Court to appoint or - 3 - N.H./ to consider for appointment in such circumstances on a Class-III post. The Supreme Court in (1994)6 SCC 560, State of Rajasthan versus Umrao Singh and (2007)6 SCC 162, I.G. (Karmik) and others versus Prahalad Mani Tripathi has held in similar circumstances when the candidate was recommended for a Class-III post but came to be appointed on a Class-IV post, joined the post and then staked his claim to Class-III post, that it was devoid of merit. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Navin Sinha,J.)