LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.783 OF 2005 ****** Against the order dated 17.1.2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6780 of 2003. ****** MEERA DEVI @ MEERA KUMARI, D/o Late Rajendra Mandal, resident of village- Ninga Baluara, P.O. Ninga, P.S. Barauni, District- Begusarai. ….. Petitioner….Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. District Magistrate cum Chair Person, District Compassionate Committee, Begusarai. 3. District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Begusarai. 4. District Education Officer, Begusarai. …. Respondents…Respondents. ****** For the Appellant: Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A.-5 ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ****** S.K. Katriar, J. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.6780 of 2003 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2005, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the respondent authorities rejecting her application for appointment on compassionate ground has been upheld. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The appellant’s father, Rajendra Mandal, was in the services of the Bihar Government and died on 17.7.1997, while still in harness as Assistant Teacher. The appellant submitted her application dated 15.12.1998 for consideration of her case for appointment on a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. It was, inter alia, stated therein that, though she is married, she is separated from her husband and is living in her Naihar with her mother. It was further stated therein that her brother had deserted the family and is living separately. The matter remained pending for quite sometime for reasons entirely attributable to the authorities and the appellant’s application was ultimately rejected by order dated 27.12.2002, on the ground that she enjoyed the status of a married lady as on the date of demise of her father. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the present writ petition which has been rejected mainly on the ground that she was admittedly a married lady on 17.7.1997, the date of demise of her father. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that late Rajendra Mandal died on 17.7.1997, while still in harness and was an Assistant Teacher in the services of the Government of Bihar. She had submitted her application for 3 appointment on compassionate ground that though her marriage was formally subsisting, she had really separated from her husband because of bitter relations which had developed between them, she had retreated to her Naihar, and was living with her widow mother. But for the order of divorce, we would have found it difficult to accept this version, mere Ipsi Dixit and a self serving statement of the appellant. She was really granted divorce by the learned District Judge, Begusarai, by his order dated 7.3.2001. The learned District Judge found that she was married on 1.3.1993, and lived in her matrimonial home till 6.5.1995. On account of unbearable relations that had developed between the couple, she withdrew from the company of her husband and she had retraced her steps to her Naihar and was living with her parents since 6.5.1995. The order further noted that they had been living separately having no matrimonial relationship ever since 6.5.1995. The application for divorce was filed sometime in 2000, and it was prayed therein that a decree of divorce may be granted with mutual consent of the parties. On a consideration of the materials on record including the evidence led down by both sides, decree of divorce was granted. The net result is that the matrimonial ties had in substance snapped on 6.5.1995. She was consistently living since then in her Naihar with her parents from before the demise of her father. It is further evident that the decree of divorce was 4 passed on 7.3.2001, and the impugned order was passed by the authorities on 27.12.2002. 4. The order of the learned Single Judge opens with the following words: “… On 27th July 2004, this Court directed the respondents to file counter affidavit. No such affidavit has been filed. It was made clear in the order dated 27th July, 2004, that it shall be the obligation of the respondents to inform this Court as to whether the decree of divorce was taken into consideration on 27th December, 2002 when the petitioner’s case was considered by the District Magistrate. There is no information from the end of the respondents as to whether the decree of divorce of the petitioner was taken into consideration on 27th December, 2002…” (Emphasis added) We are of the view that the decree of divorce fully supports the appellant’s case in various ways. First of all, on account of differences with her husband, she was permanently back to her Naihar ever since 6.5.1995, from before the demise of her father, had no matrimonial ties with her husband ever since then, and she was a divorcee on the date the authorities took the decision. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, her status had for all intents and purposes, that of an unmarried girl, with no independent source of income and little education. We have no manner of doubt that the authorities were bound in law to consider these aspects of the matter. It, therefore, becomes a case of misdirection and is accordingly set aside. 5 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed. We respectfully disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently the writ petition is also allowed. The District Magistrate of the district of Begusarai is hereby directed to appoint the appellant on a Class IV post with effect from 1.10.2010. (S K Katriar, J.) Birendra Prasad Verma, J. I agree. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 27th day of August, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)