IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17057 of 2009 1. MOST. JAWANI DEVI W/O LATE SAJJAN LAL NIRALA R/O VILL.- HALDIKHODA, P.S.- KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA 3. THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA ----------- 2. 02.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be second wife of the deceased who died in harness on 3.11.2001. Compassionate appointment has been granted in 2006 itself to the eldest son of the first wife. There is no challenge in the application to the appointment so made in 2006 and the only relief sought is to direct the respondents to appoint the son of the present petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Bench decision of this Court in 2009(1) PLJR 391 (Sonapati Devi Vrs State of Bihar) to submit that there is no hard and fast rule that only the eldest son is to be provided compassionate appointment which shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appointment was not meant for the eldest son rather it was meant for the entire family dependant upon the deceased. He submits that in the present case the eldest son given appointment was not looking after the rest of the family and which was one of the reasons why compassionate appointment is granted. He is therefore not eligible to be given such appointment. Counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that eldest son has been appointed in terms of the policy regulating the compassionate appointment more than three years ago. In the case of Sonapati Devi (Supra), relied upon by the petitioner, the compassionate appointment was sought tobe denied on the ground that it was available to the eldest son only who was stated to be employed and living separately. It was in that background that the direction to consider the second son came tobe given. The present case is clearly distinguishable on its own facts. As noticed above the petitioner does not question the appointment of her step son. She seeks the relief for appointment of her own son only. There can be no two compassionate appointments on the same basis. If her step son was not looking after her as she alleges, her remedy lies under the laws of the land to compel him to do so. It is not the case of the petitioner that the step son did not meet the eligibility requirements with regard to age, qualification and had not been appointed in accordance with law. An appointment on compassionate ground has to be made in terms of the policy and only if there is a deviation from the policy that the Court will interfere. A Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 453 (Vishal Kumar Vrs the State of Bihar & Ors.) has held at Para 3 & 4 as follows:- ‘’3. The matter relates to seeking a job in the Rural Engineering Organisation Department. The job was denied by the Committee on the ground that the elder brother of the appellant had been gainfully employed in the State Bank of India. The contention of the appellant is to the effect that his brother and father were separate and evidence was offered, to the effect, that this was so. 4. The Court is afraid, that logic of law will not apply for if there will be rivalry within the family as in the present case between the father and the son or between siblings, a job can be offered on the principle of compassionate appointment only to one person and when one is gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment.” This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)