IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1126 of 2010 Pappu Kumar, S/O Late Rajendra Singh, R/O Village- Dhorhat Salarpur, P.S. Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad. …..Petitioner- Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Jehanabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police -Cum- District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Jehanabad. …..Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 02- 28.06.2011 Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh for the appellant. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.417 of 2010, and is aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and it has been held that the writ petitioner cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground on account of lapse of time. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the appellant’s late father was working as a Home Guard in Jehanabad Police Station. He met with an accident and died on 23.3.2005, while still in harness. The appellant was thirteen years of age on that date. He had filed an application for compassionate appointment on 27.4.2005. The application remained pending for all these years because he was not eligible for appointment on the date 2 of his application on account of age leading to the writ petition. The same has been rejected on the ground that, on account of lapse of time, the appellant’s application for appointment on compassionate ground has become infructuous. We agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Law is well settled that all public employment in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which is possible only if the vacancies are advertised and every eligible candidate has the opportunity to apply in accordance with law. The same is normally treated to be a back-door entry, is based on descent, and is in the teeth of the general principles of law regarding public employment. The Court has normally set its face against such appointment on compassionate ground subject to provision in the Rules, and Regulations, or the policy decision etc. of the employer. 4. This is subject to one exception, namely, appointment on compassionate ground is possible provided the terms and conditions, Rules and Regulations, or the policy decision of the employer provides for compassionate appointment. In spite of repeated queries, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to produce before us any 3 provision in the Rules and Regulations, or the policy decision providing for appointment on compassionate ground in the present situation. It is equally well settled that appointment on compassionate ground is made to meet the emergency needs of the family which has been left high and dry in life on account of sudden demise of the bread-winner of the family. It is presumed in law that, if such an appointment is not made available to the destitute family of the late employee immediately, except reasons other than negligence or mala-fide approach of the employer, then it is presumed that the needs of the family have already been taken care of, and hardly any justification is left for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we agree with the order of the learned Single Judge that the needs of the family have been taken care of with the passage of time and we, therefore, desist from passing any order for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. This appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 4