IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.229 of 2007 PRAKASH KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-SHILANATH, P.O.-DULLIPATTI, P.S.- JAINAGAR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 2.THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 3.THE REGISTRAR L.N.M UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 4.THE PRINCIPAL, J.M.D.P.L., MAHILA COLLEGE, MADHUBANI. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 31.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for the Lalit Narayan Mithila University. The petitioner seeks direction for his appointment on class-III and/or class-IV post in Jhumak Mahaseth Dr. Dharmpriyalal Mahila College, Madhubani, a constituent college of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, on the ground that his father late Lakshman Prasad died in harness on 23.03.2005. Though the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit, but from the writ petition, it is very much clear that the father of the petitioner was working in a fourth phase constituent College in which the dispute of absorption of service of its teaching and non-teaching employees had been 2 unresolved till the lifetime of the father of the petitioner. The matter relating to absorption of teaching and non-teaching employee of the 36 constituent Colleges of IVth phase including the College of father the petitioner in fact was pending before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, and in its judgment dated 12.10.2004, the Apex Court while approving the report of Justice S.C. Aggarwal Commission had directed the University to do the needful for regularization/absorbing the services of the persons, whose names were recommended in Justice S.C. Aggarwal Commission report. It is also an admitted fact that the matter relating to absorption/regularization has not acquired finality and the matter has again travelled to the Apex Court, when this Court had constituted a committee to look into the absorption made in all these 36 constituent Colleges, in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated 12.10.2004. In such a situation, when the status of the father of the petitioner has remained fluid, any decision could not have been taken 3 by the University of the College for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. This Court therefore would direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground if there be:- (I). The name of the father of the petitioner amongst the approved class-III employee of the College in question in the report of Justice S.C. Aggarwal. (II). If there be a vacant sanctioned class-III and class-IV post in the College. (III). If the petitioner fulfills the prescribed qualification for either a class-III or class-IV post. Such exercise must be completed by both, the authorities of the College and the University within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground is rejected, the concerned authority will be also required to record the reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. 4 Let it be made clear, that this Court has not decided such claim of the petitioner on merits and has simply remitted the matter back for consideration of the case of the petitioner, as per the guidelines of compassionate appointment adopted by the University and of course strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)