IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12486 of 2002 SMT.RAJMUNI DEVI, wife of late Jamuna Upadhyaya, Village + P.O. Upadhyaypur, PS Buxar(T), District Buxar……. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Patna 3. The Superintendent of Police, Purnia, Bihar 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Bihar,Patna …. Respondents ----------- 03- 2.4.2009 Heard Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.12. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.7.2002 (Annexure 7), issued under the signature of respondent no.3, whereby the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground of delay. Learned government counsel has opposed the writ petition. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that one Jamuna Upadhyaya was a member of the Bihar Police Force and was posted as a Constable in the district of Purnia. He died on 16.3.1982, on account of his ailment. Arvind Upadhyaya, his son, was then a minor. The petitioner, being the widow of the late employee, claims to have filed an application for appointment of Arvind Upadhyaya, her son, on compassionate ground, twelve years after the demise of the employee. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of lapse of time. Law is well settled that appointment on compassionate ground in one sense is a back-door entry and substantially based on descent, except where the provision of law or - 2 - the policy decision of the employer permits it. 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 wide publicity of the vacancies and objective selection process. Appointment on compassionate ground is based on descent and is in the teeth of the aforesaid principle. However, appointment on compassionate ground has been upheld by courts so that the family, left high and dry on account of the death of the bread-winner of the family, is able to tide over the crisis. However, if compassionate appointment has not been possible for certain circumstances immediately, then the assumption in law is that the family has been able to take care of its crisis and the need for appointment on compassionate ground is over. As is evident in the present case, the employee died on 16.3.1982, and his son was then a minor. The first application was filed in 1994, after lapse of 12 years. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the impugned order. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl