IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1221 of 2009 ALOK KUMAR NIRALA, SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYAGAON, P.S. SHEYAMPUR BHATAHAN, DISTRICT – SHEOHAR. ……………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SITAMARHI. 4. THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, SITAMAHRI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. ……………. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : - Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Zaki Haider, AC to GA 6. ----------- 02/ 24.06.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s father late Ram Lakhan Paswan was Assistant teacher and he died in harness on 17.6.1987. At the time of his father’s death petitioner was only four years of age as his date of birth was 15.1.1983. The widow of Ram Lakhan Paswan, mother of petitioner, Sharda Devi filed her application for compassionate appointment in the year 1988. Statement in the counter affidavit indicates that the application for compassionate appointment filed on behalf of Sharda Devi remained pending for a long time and finally in the meeting of Compassionate Committee, Sitamahri, dated 18.12.2004 her application was rejected on the ground of delay and 2 having lesser than requisite educational qualification of the applicant. Sharda Devi did not possess requisite qualification i.e. certificate of Class VIII, as such she was not found eligible for being appointed even on Class IV post. In the year, 2003 the mother of petitioner filed an application before the authorities for compassionate appointment of her son (petitioner), who by now has gained majority. Prayer of the petitioner in this application is for a direction to the respondents to issue a letter of appointment in his favour, on compassionate ground. The first applicant, mother of the petitioner, could have been appointed on compassionate ground; if she would have fulfilled requisite educational criteria. The appointment of petitioner’s mother, would have also fulfilled the object of compassionate appointment, and had provided immediate financial assistance’ help and monetary security to the family, facing adversity after the death of bread earner. Father of the petitioner died in the year 1987, petitioner was only four years child at that time. By any means, the family survived till 2009, the object 3 for which provision for compassionate appointment has been introduced, will not be achieved, by appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground, after so many years. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a right. It is also not an alternative mode of appointment but only it can be provided to a family as security, whose bread earner dies in harness. For reasons stated, I do not find that after so many years, petitioner could have claimed for compassionate appointment. His application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the Compassionate Committee. I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)