IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2268 of 2008 with CWJC No.17254 of 2010 with CWJC No.18274 of 2010 CWJC No. 2268/2008: Pankaj Kumar , son of Late Mahanth Thakur, village Balha, PS Bhawanipur, district Bhagalpur – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. 4) The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 5) The Regional Dy. Director of Education, Bhagalpur. 6) The Collector, Bhagalpur. 7) The Dist. Education Officer, Bhagalpur. 8) The Area Education Officer, Nawgachia, Bhagalpur – Respondents. CWJC No.17254/2010: 1) Md. Kalimuddin, son of Late Hanif Ansari, village sohail, PS Sanokhar, Dist. Bhagalpur, at present posted as Assistant in the office of Area Education Officer. 2) Anand Kumar Yadav, son of Late Upendra Yadav, village Tulsipur, PS Kharik, Dist. Bhagalpur, at present posted as Assistant in the office of Area Education Officer, Bhagalpur – Petitioners.. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Chairman, Dist. Compassionate Committee, Bhagalpur cum Dist. Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 4) The Dist. Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 5) The Regional Dy. Director of Education, Bhagalpur. 6) The Dist. Supdt. Of Education, Bhagalpur. 7) The Area Education Officer, Bhagalpur – Respondents. CWJC No. 18274/2010: Narendra Kumar, son of in the office of Area Education Officer, Banka, Dist. Late Bishundeo Mandal, village Lokmanpur, PS Kharik, Dist. Bhagalpur, at present posted as Clerk Banka. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3) The chairman, Dist. Compassionate Committee, Bhagalpur cum Dist. Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 4) The Dist. Magistrate, Banka. 5) The Regional Dy. Director of Education, Bhagalpur. 6) The Dist. Supdt. Of Education, Banka. 7) Area Education Officer, Banka – Respondents. 7 28.3.2011 The petitioners of these writ petitions were appointed 2 on compassionate ground by a decision of the District Compassionate Committee on the post of Clerk in the Area Education Office. Subsequently by Annexure 6 these petitioners along with others were posted in different offices of different Area Education Officers. The petitioners received their salary for few months and thereafter their salary was stopped. One of them Md. Kalimuddin and another came to this court in CWJC No. 9712/2007 in which they made a prayer that their representation for payment of salary is pending which is not being disposed of by the concerned authorities. This court vide order, dated 4.9.2008 directed that the respondents should decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of three months on petitioners filing fresh representation. Predictably, the decision was not within three months and as such Md. Kalimuddin and another filed a contempt petition. In the contempt petition show cause was filed annexing the decision of the respondents, dated 28.8.2010. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, dated 28.8.2010 filed CWJC No. 17254/2010. The other petitioners are similarly aggrieved by the order disposing of their representation. The order contained in memo no. 684, dated 28.8.2010 indicates that the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 12.7.2007 reconsidered the appointment of the petitioners and others and decided to appoint them as Panchayat teachers, since they had the qualification of Intermediate, with the proviso that they would acquire the qualification of training within a period of five years. 3 In memo no. 684, dated 28.8.2010 the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur has held that since the earlier order appointing the petitioners as clerk in the Area Education Office has been reconsidered by letter no. 638, dated 12.7.2007, the later would prevail. The said order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education also indicates that since the petitioners’ appointment as clerks had been cancelled by the later decision, dated 12.7.2007, they would not be entitled to receive salary for the aforesaid period. This court after considering the submissions and perusing the documents comes to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners was considered by the District Compassionate Committee in the year 2004. The petitioners joined in pursuance of the said order, and were posted at different places. It is not the fault of the petitioners that they were posted in an area, where it is alleged the post was not existing. In the circumstances it was up to the Regional Deputy Director of Education and not the District Compassionate Committee to renotify the posting of the petitioners. The subsequent decision of the Compassionate Committee is absolutely unwarranted as there had already been a decision to make appointment on compassionate ground. In case the Regional Deputy Director of Education had reported the matter to the Compassionate Committee that no post of clerk was available, then at most the Compassionate Committee could have made appointment of the petitioners on similar or equivalent post. As far as making appointment on the post of teachers are 4 concerned, this court cannot hold that it is equivalent because of lack of pleadings on behalf of either of the parties. However, this court finds that the appointment has been made subject to certain conditions which envisages that the petitioners should get training within a period of five years which in itself is a difficult proposition. Persons appointed on compassionate ground or on any other ground, cannot be discriminated or treated in a different manner for reasons which are beyond the control of the petitioners. As such this court does not find any merit in the subsequent decision of the District Compassionate Committee as it was absolutely unwarranted in the facts stated aforesaid. I, therefore, direct the Regional Deputy Director of Education to identify available posts within six weeks and thereafter post the petitioners accordingly. I may observe at this juncture, that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had earlier filed an affidavit in this court stating that no post was available at the place where the petitioners were posted, subsequently he has resiled from his earlier statement. This is not to be appreciated at all. It is expected that the parties should come to the court with clean hands and do not make misleading statements in their affidavits. The final order with regard to posting of the petitioners should be passed within a period of three months. Since the petitioners were validly appointed on compassionate ground in 2004, this period would be entitled to be considered as 5 continuation in service, for the purpose of calculating other benefits available to them. However, the petitioners will not be entitled for salary for the said period as they have not worked during that period. These writ petitions are, thus, allowed with the aforesaid directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)