IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5755 of 2007 AJAY KUMAR CHAUPAL, son of late Dhaneshwar Das, resident of Mohalla- Gangjala, P.S. & District- Saharsa. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kosi Planning, Saharsa (the then Purnea) 4. The Establishment Dy. Collector, Collectorate, Purnea 5. The District Magistrate-cum-President, District Compassionate Committee, Purnea. …. Respondents. ----------- 2. 04.04.2011 Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 4.4.2006 by recording a finding that after the death of his father on 6.12.1999, he had submitted his application on 2.10.2000 enclosing an affidavit of one Tarni Das, elder son of deceased employee dated 25.8.2000 wherein Tarni he is said to have given up his claim for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of petitioner. The authorities however in the impugned resolution dated 4.4.2006 have found that the said affidavit of Tarni Das 2 dated 25.8.2000 produced by the petitioner was forged inasmuch as Tarni Das in course of subsequent enquiry had clearly denied his signature on such affidavit and a report to the same effect thereafter was also submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated 1.3.2006 which upon being considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee led to the aforementioned impugned resolution dated 4.4.2006. Mr. Sinha, however would submit that the plea of Tarni Das of denying his signature on the affidavit dated 25.8.2000 seems to be a new innovation inasmuch as when the petitioner had filed his earlier writ petition CWJC No. 4908 of 2002, the State of Bihar having filed its counter affidavit did not take this plea of the petitioner of producing a forged affidavit of Tarni Das and therefore this could not have been subsequently made a ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would point out that not only Tarni Das had denied his signature on the alleged affidavit produced by the petitioner but had also staked his own case and claim for 3 appointment on compassionate ground and therefore the story of Tarni Das giving a no objection certificate in favour of appointment of the petitioner would not inspire confidence. Counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit that the whole controversy has now been set at rest by the subsequent event of death of Tarni Das on 16.8.2006 leaving the petitioner now to be sole claimant for compassionate appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the things are not so simple as they have been projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Here is a case where the petitioner was seeking government employment on compassionate ground and therefore if he had produced a forged affidavit of late Tarni Das dated 25.8.2000 that by itself could disentitle him from getting any government service. True it is, if the petitioner had not filed such a forged affidavit and there was some sort of family settlement in which Tarni Das had genuinely given up his claim for compassionate appointment, he could still be given appointment on compassionate ground inasmuch as in that case the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the 4 impugned Resolution dated 4.4.2006 will have to be held as bad. At the same time, as neither of the parties has produced the alleged forged affidavit of Tarni Das dated 25.8.2000 or even the application filed by Tarni Das denying his signature thereon as referred to in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, this Court would find it necessary that a further enquiry should be carried out at the level of the Collector of Purnea District whose office is having the admitted genuine signature of Tarni Das in the application filed by him denying the fact that the affidavit dated 25.8.2000 was sworn by him as also the original copy of alleged affidavit of Tarni Das dated 25.8.2000 filed by the petitioner along with his application for appointment on compassionate ground dated 2.10.2000. This Court must make it clear that it has not been impressed with the submission of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since in the earlier counter affidavit this fact of filing of forged affidavit of Tarni Das was not raised by the respondents that would preclude the State and its officials from taking such plea. It has to be noted that this aspect of the matter has been fully explained in the impugned resolution of the District 5 Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 4.4.2006 wherein the fact with regard to the receipt of complaint denying signature by Tarni Das leading to an earlier enquiry instituted by the Collector has been mentioned but that enquiry seems to have been dropped in the midway on account of some other materials produced in the next meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. It is, however, clear that it was only after disposal of the earlier writ petition of the petitioner that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had submitted his detailed report dated 1.3.2006 which was made the basis for passing the impugned resolution. In that view of the matter, Collector of Purnea district must personally address himself to the question of genuineness of the affidavit, in question, dated 25.8.2000 of late Tarni Das by holding independent enquiry in which he shall of course take aid and assistance of the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory. The Collector of Purnea district is accordingly directed to send the disputed signature of Tarni Das in the affidavit dated 25.8.2000 along with the admitted signature of Tarni Das for an opinion of the Handwriting 6 Expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna under sealed cover through a special messenger and having obtained the said report of Forensic Science Laboratory again through a special messenger in the sealed cover, would consider the same with other materials on record as to whether the allegation against the petitioner of producing a forged affidavit of late Tarni Das dated 25.8.2000 was correct. In the event, he would find that the signature of late Tarni Das on the affidavit produced by the petitioner was forged, he would pass an order to this effect and would straightway reject the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. If however, on the other hand, the Collector of Purnea district would find that the signature of Tarni Das on the affidavit dated 25.8.2000 as produced by the petitioner was genuine, he would again place the case of the petitioner in the meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee which would reconsider the case of the petitioner on merit also by taking into account that alleged other claimant for compassionate appointment being late Tarni Das is no longer alive on account of his death on 16.8.2006. The Collector of the district however must 7 take his final decision in the manner indicated above within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)