IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11356 of 2006 NANAKI DEVI, D/O late Nanda Devi, resident of Mohalla- South Mandiri, P.S. Budha Colony, District-Patna. Versus 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Superintending Engineer, Path Nirman Bibhag, P.W.D.,back of Radio Station,Chhajubagh, Patna. 3.Karyapalak Abhiyanta, Path Nirman Bibhag, Path Parmandal,Guljarbagh, Patna City, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. C.P. Sinha,Advocate For the State: Tripurari Nath Ambastha,A.C. to S.C.II -- 3. 30.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter No.1773 dated 21.12.2002 ( Annexure-1), by which the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter does not contain any ground of rejection. The three reasons for which the same has been rejected have been intimated to him by letter No.1411 dated 6.11.2001. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the said letter dated 6.11.2001 issued by the Executive Engineer, it is stated that the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Patna by his letter No. 2169 dated 16.10.2001 has rejected the application on three grounds and a copy of said letter has been annexed with letter No.1411 dated 6.11.2001. No stand has been taken in the writ application that the said letter did not contain the letter dated 16.10.2001 of the Superintending Engineer. The said letter of rejection dated 16.10.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, in which grounds of rejection have been shown as non- filing of the application for compassionate appointment within five years 2 in terms of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department’s letter No.2822 dated 27.4.1995 and further that an appointment on compassionate ground can only be given to an unmarried daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied in the year 1995 itself on the death of her mother on 9.2.1995, although the said appears to have been made on a plain paper. However, nothing is stated by learned counsel regarding the other ground of rejection, namely, that the petitioner is a married daughter. The only plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds of rejection were not communicated to the petitioner. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that even if it is accepted that the application of the petitioner on a plain paper ought to have been treated as valid and within the time, the question remains that under the scheme as laid down by the State Government, there is no provision for appointment of a married daughter. The said stand of the respondent- authorities have not at all been countered in the writ application. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)