IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4050 of 2011 RANA PRATAP SINGH, s/o late Hawaldar Singh, R/o village-Belvasa, P.S. Andar, District- Siwan………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Director General CISF, Head Quarter, New Delhi, 13, C.G.O.,complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Commandant, CISF, Unit, C.P.M. Panchgram, District- Hailikandi, Assam. 3. The Group Commandant, CISF, Unit, Group Commndant, Head Quarter, Gohati, Assam. 4. The Assistant Commandant, CISF, 11 MRD, Road, Bamuni Maidan, Gohati, Assam. 5. The Inspector General, CISF, East Segment, Head Quarter, Boring Road, Patliputra, Patna. 6. The DIG, CISF, East Kolkata-107, West Bengal ……………. Respondents. ----------- 2. 7.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10/11.1.2011, by which the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. In the aforesaid letter, it is stated that the petitioner belongs to general category and was entitled to avail three chances to qualify in the relevant tests for his compassionate appointment in CISF, but he could not qualify in the relevant tests held on 19.3.2007 and 26.11.2007 in height and trade tests and he ignored the last opportunity on two occasions by absenting himself on 5.5.2008 and 29.12.2008. Therefore, his case has been closed as per the order of the competent - 2 - authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the aforesaid grounds are not relevant in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment under the CISF, although he submits that in case of compassionate appointment the petitioner could not have been compelled to appear in the general category test along with other candidates. Nothing has been brought on the record or placed before this Court to show that the grounds given in the impugned letter dated 10/11.1.2011 are contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment as laid down in the C.I.S.F. nor any document or provision has been shown in favour of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that compassionate appointment is part of a Social Welfare Scheme and, therefore, the authorities cannot be permitted to act in the manner as they have done. This Court does not find any force in the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no fundamental or legal right to get compassionate appointment, except in terms - 3 - of any scheme or guidelines laid down by the employer. If the petitioner does not qualify in terms of the scheme, then he cannot claim for appointment on compassionate ground merely taking a plea that it is a Social Welfare Scheme. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )