IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2804 of 2011 Bhonu @ Bhonu Paswan Son of Late Jugeshwar, Resident of village- Ambedkar Nagar, P.S. Barh, Distt.-Patna……………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C.Railway, Danapur. 3. The Chief Medical Director, E.C. Railway, Hazipur. 4. The Chief Medical Superintendent, E.C.Railway, Danapur. 5. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, E.C.Railway, Danapur………………………………………………….Respondents. ----------- 2. 30.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel for the Railways. Petitioner’s father died in harness as a Gangman on 20.5.2005. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment through an application filed on 26.6.06. The same was rejected on 18.4.07 because the Chief Medical Officer in course of Medical Examination of the petitioner found him unfit for all category of works on which he could be considered for appointment. Petitioner attempted to challenge the opinion of the Medical Officer by producing private medical certificates before the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench, Patna. The Tribunal however found no illegality in the stand of the Railways and hence O.A. No. 596/2008 was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.11.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even a handicapped person can seek appointment in the Railway provided his handicap is 40% or above. After obtaining further 2 certificate from the Doctor, petitioner claims that his handicap is not 10% as originally claimed, rather it is 40%. In our view the Tribunal has taken a correct view that the application of the petitioner is for compassionate appointment and not for a normal appointment on account of reservation for the handicapped persons. For appointment on compassion no person has vested right and if the employer on the basis of medical opinion finds a person unsuitable for the vacant post, the employer cannot be compelled to make compassionate appointment. In this particular case we are impressed by the fair stand of Railways because in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit a stand has been taken that the petitioner was advised to submit another application for appointment of his brother on compassionate ground. If the family is in dire need of help, we expect that the petitioner will inform his brother to apply for compassionate appointment. If that is done within a reasonable time, such application should be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)