IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1214 of 2010 Madhu Ranjan son of late Ashik Kal Singh, resident of Village Katahara, PO Katahara, PS Sultangaj, District Bhagalpur .....Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Human Resources and Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources and Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur 5. The District Magistrate –cum-Chairman District Compassionate Committee, Bhagalpur 6. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bhagalpur 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur 8. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur ..............Respondents/Respondents ----------- 02- 6/7/2011 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarve for the appellant, and Mr. Rishi Raj, learned Govt. Pleader no.19 for the respondents. The petitioner of CWJC No.1399 of 2010 has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of the respondent authorities for his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. According to his Matriculation certificate, the appellant was born on 15.1.1979. His father was working as Assistant Teacher in the Bihar Government and died in May 1992, while still in harness. The appellant was a little more than 13 years of age at the time of death of his father. After he completed 18 years of age, he submitted his application on 6.5.1997 for appointment on a class IV post on compassionate ground. The 2 appellant’s case was considered by the Compassionate Committee and was rejected by order dated 2.6.2008, leading to the writ petition which has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant was only 13 years of age on the date of demise of his father, and completed 18 years of each five years thereafter. 3. While assailing the validity of the order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Compassionate Committee erred in stating in its report that there was a dispute about the appellant’s date of birth. He next submits that the authorities are entirely responsible for the delay that has occurred in the matter. The application of 6.5.1997, was disposed of on 2.6.2008. He relies on the following reported judgments :- (i) Brajendra Prasad Poddar vs. State of Bihar 1990 (2) PLJR 668 (ii) Dr. Lakshmi Choudhary vs. Uma Shankar Pandey 1998 (1) PLJR 5 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. According to the appellant’s date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation certificate, the appellant was born on 15.1.1979. Law is well settled that a rebuttable presumption attaches to the entry in respect of date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate. The respondent authorities never produced any material to contradict the date of birth recorded in the certificate. Learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in his submission that there was really no contradiction with respect to the appellant’s date of birth. 5. It appears from the materials on record that the 3 appellant’s father died in May 1992, while still in the services of the Bihar Government. However, the appellant was a little more than 13 years of age on the date of demise of his father. He could not have been considered for appointment on that date. Taking 18 years to be the minimum age for entry into a class IV service of the Bihar Government, the appellant became eligible for the consideration in January 1997. 6. Law is well settled in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court that all public employment in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which can be ensured only by a genuine advertisement giving it wide publicity and every eligible citizen should have the opportunity to apply for consideration. Appointment on compassionate ground is deviation from this constitutional mandate, is really a back-door entry, and is based on descent. The Courts have, therefore, normally set its face against such appointment except where the Rules, Regulations, or the policy decisions of the employer provides for the same. Admitted position is that the policy decision of the State Government does provide for such appointment. Law is equally well settled that compassionate appointment is permissible in order to provide immediate relief to the family in view of the sudden demise of the bread winner of the family. Law presumes that if appointment has not taken place soon after the demise of the employee, then it is presumed in law that the emergent needs of the family have been taken care of with the passage of time. Cases of inaction, delay, or negligence on the part of the authorities 4 stand on a different footing and really do not arise for consideration in the present case. In view of the position that the appellant became eligible for appointment five years after the demise of the employee, it is difficult for this Court to sanction appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground. We agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Vikash Jain ) mrl