IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1176 of 2010 1. KAILASH KUMAR DAS S/O LAKHAN LAL DAS R/O RAHIKA TOLA, KRISHNA NAGAR,P.S.ARARIA,DISTT-ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARARIA 3. THE CIVIL SUREGON - CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ARARIA 4. THE ESTABLISHMENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR ARARIA For the Petitioner: Dr. Mayanand Jha, Adv. Mr. Anup Kr. Chongdar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amish Kumar, A.C. to S.C.18. ----------- 3/ 03/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2009 declining his request for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment based on a Government circular dated 5.10.1991 that where both the husband and the wife were in Government service, compassionate appointment cannot be granted. It is not in controversy that both the father and the mother of the petitioner were in Government service. The father superannuated and is drawing superannuation benefits. The mother has died in harness on 8.9.2008 leading to the present application for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Bench decision reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 203 (Dilip Kumar Das vs. State of Bihar) holding that an - 2 - appointment on compassionate ground on the death of one spouse in service while the other spouse may have superannuated was not contrary to law. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 2000(4) P.L.J.R. 651 (Ashok Kumar Choudhary vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Division Bench has held that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the normal mode of appointment by selection and merit. It makes an inroad into Article-14 of the Constitution as every time a person is appointed on the grounds of descent it is at the cost of another genuine candidate. In a dwindling market of jobs with the escalating desire for the safety of a Government job there will have to be a limit to compassionate appointments which shall have to be strictly in accordance with Government circulars and orders. The circular in question has been considered in paragraph-12 of the judgement of the division bench holding at paragraph-13 specifically that the very fact that the other spouse after superannuation was getting retiral benefits was sufficient evidence that the family of the other deceased spouse was not in penury and had a source of livelihood. Compassionate appointment, therefore, on a proper - 3 - interpretation of the circular could not be granted in such a case. The petitioner appears to have attempted to build up a case of a separation between his parents during their life time for the last 25 years. It is based on an affidavit allegedly sworn in by his mother on 30.6.2008 even prior to her death stating that after her the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment. This Court refrains from recording any observations except that it appears to be a document manufactured for the present purpose. In any view of the matter, such an affidavit makes no difference in view of the nature of the claim and unambiguous nature of the circular regulating such appointment. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)