IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8751 of 2008 Prabhat Kumar, S/o Late Prof. Raj Narayan Singh, resident of Mohalla Sri Krishnapuri, Kasipur, Ward No. 5, P.O. & P.S. and District Samastipur at present posted as IVth Grade employee Samastipur College at Samastipur District Samastipur. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. L.N. Mithila University through its Vice Chancellor, Darbhanga. 2. Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 3. Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 4. Prinicipal, Samastipur College, Samastipur. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 26.4.2011 Heard Mr. Upendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the L.N. Mithila University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this petition is for issuance of an appropriate order, direction to the respondents for appointment of the petitioner as third grade employee of the college in place of ivth grade employee on compassionate ground on the ground of pre-matured death of his father Late Prof. Raj Narayan Singh who died on 21.10.1997 before the maturity of his service period. As the petitioner has been holding requisite qualification of Intermediate Class. The requisite qualification fixed for appointment as third grade employee.” Mr. Prasad would submit that when the 2 father of the petitioner had died in harness on 21.10.1997, the petitioner was aged about seventeen years and, therefore, when he had passed his Intermediate examination in the year 1999 and became major, he had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground and the University, by an order dated 15.2.2002, had appointed him on the Class-4 post along with 64 other persons. The petitioner had however discovered that such appointment of 64 persons, all on compassionate ground, was based on the indiscriminate exercise of discretionary power, wherein, there was no justifiable line of distinction for appointment in the Class-3 and Class-4 post. Thus even when the petitioner had accepted his such appointment dated 15.2.2002 on a Class-IV post he had kept on representing the authorities of the University for appointing him on a Class-3 post but, as no action was taken by the authorities in next six years, he had filed this writ application for relief mentioned above. Interesting though aforesaid explanation 3 of the petitioner may be, the fact remains that the petitioner with his open eyes had accepted such appointment on compassionate ground made in the year 2002 and has continued on a Class-IV post for a period of nine years by now. The petitioner therefore now cannot be allowed to make his case for appointment on a Class-3 post. It has to be kept in mind that for the University and its constituent colleges, there has to be a unit and since the father of the petitioner was working in R.N.A.R. College at Samastipur, that was the unit where on the basis of vacancy, he was given a Class-4 post. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was a vacancy on a Class-III post in the college where his father was working and still he was not given such a post. The petitioner in fact had compared his case with other persons of other colleges and that by itself would expose the absurdity of plea of discrimination alleged by him. The other aspect, which would be still more significant for rejecting the case of the petitioner, would be that he has not 4 impleaded any one of them as respondents in this writ petition about whom it is being claimed that they despite being similarly situated were given preferential treatment by appointing them on Class-III posts. The petitioner expects this Court to rely on a newspaper cuttings and issue a writ on the basis of such newspaper publication. Such expectation of the petitioner is wholly fanciful inasmuch as this Court cannot even look into such newspaper cuttings as they have got no evidentiary value in law. Finally, this Court would find that the purpose for which the appointment of the petitioner was made i.e. providing immediate relief to the members of the deceased father of the petitioner has stood served by offering the petitioner whatever post was available to the petitioner. The claim of compassionate appointment cannot be pressed on the ground that the petitioner was more meritorious as he had passed Intermediate examination. If the petitioner was so sanguine about his merit, he ought to have appeared in a general competitive test for 5 being appointed and got himself selected on merit. Here is a case of plain and simple compassionate appointment and such compassion was shown to him in the year 2002 by appointing him on a Class-IV post and that should be the end of the matter. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)