IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17727 of 2010 SUNIL KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 04.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is the grand son of one Bijan Ahir, who is stated to have died in harness as a Chaukidar on 7.8.2008. As the grand son he desires to be considered for compassionate appointment for which he is stated to have applied on 5.12.2008. Learned Counsel submits that his grand mother has no objection and his father is of unsound mind and therefore not in a position to seek compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on a Government Circular no. 1683 dated 19.11.1994 issued by the Home (Police) Department of the State Government. Column 3 of the same provides that if there was no son or daughter of a Chaukidar then a nominee like nephew or grand-son could be appointed after obtaining a bond as an exception. This notification is not a part of the record but has been placed separately during submissions. Counsel for the State points out that subsequent to the same a general instruction and guidelines has been issued with regard to compassionate appointment also. Neither of the parties have placed the prevalent guidelines issued by the State Government regulating compassionate appointment and whether a grand son is one of the categories mentioned therein. Needless to state that if any circular have been issued by the State Government regulating the compassionate appointment after 19.11.1994, the subsequent circular shall prevail. There can be no vested right to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is an exception to the normal rule of appointment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by open advertisement and selection on competitive merit. Therefore, any claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly in accordance with the policy guidelines when other issues like monetary status, source of income for survival of the family of the deceased etc. are all relevant actors. The Court does not find it possible to issue any positive direction for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. If so advised the petitioner may represent before the authorities which is then required tobe considered strictly in accordance with law and the policy decision in light of the aforesaid discussion within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)