IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4837 of 2006 Vikash Kumar, son of Late Jageshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Saranga, P.O. Sirish, District- Aurangabad ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Compassionate Committee through its Chairman, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad 3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad 5. The Area Education Officer, Kutumba (Aurangabad) ………………………Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Rajeev Kr. Singh & Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocates. For the State: Mr. N.K.Sinha, AAG 10 with Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, AC to AAG 10 ----------- 7. 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the District Compassionate Committee taken at its meeting held on 22.8.2005 (Annexure-1) by which his application for appointment on compassionate ground has again been rejected. The father of the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Mirjapur, Navinagar (Aurangabad) and while so posted died on 8.9.1995 leaving behind the petitioner, the eldest son, and other heirs. The petitioner was admittedly a minor on the said date having been born on 13.3.1982. Subsequently, he filed an application on 22.12.1999 in the prescribed form before the Headmaster, Government Middle School, Mirjapur who forwarded the same to the Range Education Officer, Kutumba who further recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in his letter dated 8.4.2000. It is the case of - 2 - the petitioner that he again filed another application in prescribed proforma on 20.6.2000 after attaining majority on 13.3.2000 and before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of death of his father on 8.9.1995. Thereafter while the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment remained pending, he passed his matriculation examination in the year 2001 and intermediate examination in 2003. Finding that no action was being taken upon his earlier application, the petitioner again filed an application in the prescribed manner on 3.7.2003 before the Headmaster of the school with all the further information. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the query of the respondent-authorities he supplied whatever other documents regarding his qualification and genealogy, residence certificate, etc. in the year 2003 as was required and also enclosed all the relevant documents in his further representation dated 25.9.2003. The matter was ultimately recommended before the District Compassionate Committee which in its meeting dated 29.12.2003 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it was time barred. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 2514/2004 stating all the aforesaid facts and this Court by its order dated 21.5.2005 disposing of the writ application held that while the first application of the petitioner filed on 22.12.1999 and the subsequent application of the year 2003 were both incompetent, the first on the ground of the petitioner being a minor and therefore not yet qualified to apply and the second having - 3 - been filed after expiry of five years but the one and the only competent application was dated 20.6.2000 which was not decided in accordance with law and the District Compassionate Committee was directed to consider and decide the said application on its merit in accordance with law. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 22.8.2005 the District Compassionate Committee has again rejected the case of the petitioner. The Committee at its meeting noted the fact that the petitioner in his application dated 25.9.2003 had mentioned the fact of his earlier application dated 22.12.1999 having been forwarded by the Range Education Officer by his letter dated 8.4.2000 and did not make any reference to his subsequent alleged application dated 20.6.2000. Further, it noted that the Range Education Officer, Kutumba also in his letter dated 22.8.2003 referred to the application dated 6.4.2000 but has not mentioned at all the receipt of the application dated 20.6.2000 in his office. It also noted that the petitioner in his application dated 13.12.2003 to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad had referred to his application dated 22.12.1999 and has not mentioned the subsequent application dated 20.6.2000 as having been submitted in the office of the Range Education Officer. The District Compassionate Committee therefore, came to the conclusion that after the application dated 3.7.2003 of the petitioner was held to be time barred by the Committee, the petitioner had created the subsequent fabricated application of 20.6.2000 with a back date after taking into collusion the Range Education Officer, Kutumba and the Headmaster of the school and accordingly rejected - 4 - the claim of the petitioner and also decided that the concerned Range Education Officer, Kutumba and the Headmaster of the school should be proceeded against departmentally. It is however, submitted by learned counsel for the State on the basis of the instructions that no such departmental proceeding could be initiated since the concerned Headmaster had retired on 31.3.2001 and the Range Education Officer had retired on 31.5.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly sought to rely upon the copy of the Receiving Register of the Office of the District Superintendent of Education and the receiving notes contained in the margin of the subsequent application dated 20.6.2000 (Annexure-5) which according to him, go to show that the said application was received in the office of the District Superintendent of Education on 6.11.2001. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that the same shows the genuineness of the fact that the application had been actually filed by the petitioner on 20.6.2000 which was duly recommended by the Headmaster and forwarded by the Range Education Officer with his recommendation to the District Superintendent of Education and the same has been received in his office with usual governmental delay. In the said circumstances, learned counsel contends that the conclusions drawn by the District Compassionate Committee is based wholly on conjectures and surmises. It is stated that the petitioner was a mere student when he filed his application and the subsequent representation before the authorities and thus the mere non-mentioning by him of his second - 5 - application filed on 20.6.2000 cannot lead to the straight conclusion that the same is a subsequently manipulated document after the rejection of his application dated 29.12.2003. It is urged that the authorities have not challenged and cannot challenge the receipt of the said application in the office of the DSE on 6.11.2001 and if that is so there can be no question of the same being manipulated after the rejection of the application of the petitioner dated 29.12.2003. It is also contended by learned counsel that the authorities have not at all proceeded in accordance with law in the matter as the official records support the claim of the petitioner and if at all the same was to be disbelieved then the concerned Headmaster and the Range Education Officer, even if they were retired but were receiving pension from the Government, could have been examined as witnesses so as to arrive at a correct conclusion on facts. Learned counsel also submits that no such stand was taken by the respondent-authorities of the State when the petitioner had earlier filed writ application before this Court and raised such a plea regarding his application dated 20.6.2000 not having been considered and disposed of by the authorities. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that it is evident that the so called subsequent application filed on 20.6.2000 appears to be a fabricated document as even looking at the same as annexed in Annexure-5 by the petitioner shows that the same has not been fully filled up whereas in the first application dated 22.12.1999 all the columns were filled up. He also refers to the fact - 6 - that in the earlier application (Annexure-3) all the columns were duly filled up and the Range Education Officer had also not used the single word ‘recommended’ but had mentioned the other facts and various annexures to the application were also mentioned therein. It is thus submitted that the so called application dated 20.6.2000 was subsequently hastily prepared on the basis of whatever material could be available immediately and thus a partially filled up application was got submitted after the rejection of the application of the petitioner on 29.12.2003. It is further submitted that not much credence could be placed upon the so called Receipt Register of the Office of the DSE as it would not be that difficult to create evidence in such matters. It is stated that if the petitioner really filed his application on 20.6.2000 then it is unthinkable that in the subsequent application of 2003 and the further representation made by the petitioner in the same year he did not even once refer to the said application dated 20.6.2000. For all the said reasons, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the conclusion drawn by the District Compassionate Committee is not based on mere conjectures and surmises but on the materials on the record and it is not a conclusion which a reasonable person may not arrive at. Hence, it is urged that the same is not fit to be set aside in the writ jurisdiction of this Court as this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the District Compassionate Committee but only reviews the order judicially on the basis of well settled principles of judicial review. On a consideration of the entire facts and - 7 - circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that while the District Compassionate Committee has rightly considered the fact that the petitioner has not mentioned his previous application dated 20.6.2000 in his application and representations in the year 2003 but admittedly the District Superintendent of Education in his letter dated 6.8.2004 (Annexure-12) addressed to the Establishment Deputy Collector, Aurangabad had mentioned the fact that he had found entry of the application of the petitioner in the Receipt Register of the DSE office bearing Sl. No. 1163 dated 6.11.2001, a photo copy of which was also enclosed. He however, stated that on that date the period of five years from the death of the father of the petitioner on 8.9.1995 had already expired and within the said period of five years there is no receipt of any application of the petitioner in the receipt Register. That being the position and no finding having been recorded that the said entry made on 6.11.2001 in the receipt register of the office of the DSE was forged or manipulated and the same also being concurrently supported by the entry of that number and date in the application dated 20.6.2000 filed by the petitioner, goes against the conclusion drawn by the District Compassionate Committee that the said application was brought into existence after the rejection of the application of the petitioner on 29.12.2003. It is evident that the said application was available in the office of the District Superintendent of Education at least on 6.11.2001 and the said entries having not been found by the District Superintendent of Education to be forged and fabricated one, the very conclusion of the District Compassionate Committee about - 8 - the document being manufactured after the previous rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on 29.12.2003 becomes contrary to the materials on the record. Once the above position is accepted then it must be held that the conclusions drawn by the District Compassionate Committee is not correct and it is not based upon an enquiry into all the relevant materials on the record. There seems to be sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the conclusions have been arrived at without making proper enquiry into the matter. For the above reasons, the writ application is allowed and the impugned decision of the District Compassionate Committee taken at its meeting held on 22.8.2005 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the District Compassionate Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law on the basis of the materials on the record. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)