IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6730 of 2008 MD.SULTANUL HAQUE, S/O LATE KHAIRU ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE SINGHAUL, PS.MUFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ….........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 3.THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. …..........RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 22.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner having been appointed against class-IV post on compassionate ground, seeks direction from this Court that he should be appointed against class-III post, inasmuch as, District Compassionate Appointment Committee had recommended for such appointment of the petitioner only against class-III post. Counsel for the State submits that the respondents had no option, but to appoint the petitioner on any vacant post and since at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the vacancy was available only against a class-IV post, he was offered such appointment which he had voluntarily accepted by joining on a Classs-IV post on which he was still working. 2 In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no further compassion after appointment on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matter has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umraon Singh reported in (1994)6 S.c.C. 560 wherein it has been held that once a person is offered employment against an inferior post and would accept the same, there could be no furher compassion inasmuch as such claim for compassionate appointment comes to an automatic end because there is no concept of endless compassion. The submission of Mr. Kumar that since there was a recommendation for appointment of petitioner on a class-III post, he could not have been appointed on class-IV post has to be noted only of its being rejected. Such recommendation of Compassionate Appointment Committee is not binding on the Appointing Authority who has to proceed on the basis of the vacancies available in its office. Thus whatever vacancy was available and was offered to the petitioner should be an end of the matter and sufficient for the purposes of fulfilling the requirement of the policy of 3 compassionate appointment. The plea of discrimination as raised by Mr. Kumar that, two persons have been appointed on compassionate ground by the Collector of the district in his own establishment on class-III post, has to be again understood in this context that the father of the petitioner was an employee in the Animal Husbandary Department and his appointment was possible only in the same department. If therefore, there was no vacancy in that department, the petitioner was eventually given class-IV post, that would not make him entitled to complain about the appointment of the persons in separate establishment and in separate departments when there may have been vacancy in class-III post. The right to equality under Article-14 of the Constitution of India and consequently plea of discrimination has also certain limitations one of them being of same class. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)