IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2092 of 2008 Amar Nath, S/o Late Om Nath, C/o Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of Village Bora Dukan Shiv Mahal Gate Monawan Ganj, P.O. and P.S. Hahebganj, District Chhapra (Bihar). ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through office of the Inspector General Eastern Zone, Central Industrial Security Force, Head Office, Patna. 2. The Assistant Inspector General Recruitment of Central Industrial Security Force Head Office New Delhi. 3. The Assistant Commandant J.A.O. Central Industrial Security Force Unit C.C.L. Kargali (Jharkhand), office at office of the Deputy Inspector General CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs, P.O. Bermo, District Bokaro (Jharkhand). ----- Respondents ----------- 2 20.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India as also authorities of the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.). The petitioner in this writ application has sought a direction from this Court for his appointment on compassionate ground on the basis that his father employed in C.I.S.F. died in harness on 27.6.2002. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even when the petitioner has repeatedly been knocking the door of the respondents, he has been declared to be unsuccessful in the physical standards for the post of Constable in C.I.S.F. though the petitioner is ready to work on any post including that of a Sweeper. 2 Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has explained that the petitioner, right from the inception, was ineligible for appointment on the post of Constable in C.I.S.F., inasmuch as, the age of the petitioner on 27.6.2002 was around 31 years whereas the maximum age permissible for appointment in C.I.S.F. for general category candidate is 23 years extendable to three years for the category of OBC and five years for the SC category. He has further submitted that when the petitioner was given opportunity to appear in the selection test, he could not clear the physical standards laid down for the post of Constable. It has also been explained that no other vacancy exists on which the appointment of the petitioner could be made in C.I.S.F. In a situation like this where the petitioner’s right of consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is very limited and circumscribed by the policy itself, he cannot claim his appointment as a matter of right. Once the petitioner was over age for the post of Constable and well beyond 3 the condonable limit, his case had to be rejected on this ground alone. If the respondents, thereafter, had also given him an additional opportunity of qualifying himself for the post of Constable by allowing him to participate in the physical fitness test, that will not bind the C.I.S.F. authorities to accept that the petitioner’s age limit was condonable. In any event, when the petitioner also had failed to clear the physical standard test, he cannot claim his appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, even that policy requires appointment of an eligible person. C.I.S.F. cannot be reduced to a force of incompetent persons only because there is a scheme of compassionate appointment. As a matter of fact, the number of vacancy will always have a vital bearing in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground and as the respondents have also made it clear that they have no other vacancy except that of the post of Constable, it would be also difficult for this Court to issue a direction for appointment of the 4 petitioner against non-existing post. This aspect of the matter has been fully explained in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit, which for the sake of clarity, is quoted hereinbelow:- “8. That it is submitted that the petitioner has again been issued call-up letter to appear before recruitment board of Follower (Cook) conducted at CISF Unit, HEC Ranch on 30.08.2003 vide IG CISF (ES) HQrs. Patna Lr. of even No. 2796 dated 04.08.2003 (Annexure:7 to the writ petition) in which he was found „fit‟ and the board placed him at S. No.9 based on the marks obtained. However, due to paucity of vacancy, his case was not recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. The Department of CISF expressed its reqret to appoint him for the post of Follower due to non availability of vacancy in the said post vide CISF (ES) HQrs. Patna letter No. 2934 dated 05.08.2004 (Annexure: 8 to the writ petition). Once again, the petitioner was issued call-up letter to appear before the recruitment board of follower conducted at CISF Unit, IOC Barauni on 09.11.2004 vide IG CISF (ES) HQrs. Patna Lr. of even No. 3822 dated 13.10.2004. But the petitioner absented himself and remained absent. Subsequently, the petitioner 5 was informed vide IG CISF (ES) Patna letter No. 1194 dated 21/22.03.2005 (Annexure: 9 to the writ petition) and letter No. 3201 dated 05/06.10.2005 (Annexure: 10 to the writ petition) about non- availability of vacancy in the post of follower.” There is no denial by the petitioner to the aforesaid averments in the counter affidavit and, therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in rejecting even that part of the submission of the petitioner that at one point of time if he was asked to appear in selection for inferior post including that of a post of Cook or Sweeper, that by itself will create a right in the petitioner to be appointed against an inferior post. As held above, in the matter of compassionate appointment, the eligibility of the candidate cannot be altogether ignored nor can the authority be compelled to appoint a person even in absence of vacancy. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and, the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)