IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.163 of 2009 VISHWAMITRA KUMAR, SON OF LATE MAHINDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOPALAPUR, P.O. KHANGAON, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, NEW DELHI. 2. DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, CPM, PANCHGRAM, ASAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR DEPUTY COMMANDANT, C.I.S.F. UNIT, C.P.M., ASAM. 4. THE GROUP COMMANDANT, CISF GP. HQRS. GUWAHATI. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKHA BOARD, PATNA. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC. ----------- 05. 12.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2008, Annexure-6, whereunder his request for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Deputy Commandant, CISF holding that since the petitioner possess Madhyama(Matriculation) qualification from the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board) which is not recognized by the Central Government he is not entitled for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner questioned the said order on the ground that in the CRPF candidates acquiring Madhyama qualification from the Board have been recruited as constable and the CISF also being under the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union, Madhya certificate granted by the Board be considered as a relevant qualification for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. In the light of the aforesaid contention of the petitioner this Court under order dated 3.8.2009 and 16.10.2009 called upon the - 2 - counsel for the Union of India to seek instruction from the authorities as to whether others with Madhyama qualification from the Board have been recruited as constable in the CRPF. In response to the aforesaid direction, the authorities of the CISF having obtained instructions from the authorities of the CRPF, by filing supplementary affidavit conceded that 10 appointments have been made in the CRPF from amongst those who have obtained Madhyama qualification from the Board. Learned counsel for the Union, however, submitted that aforesaid decision of the CRPF authorities to appoint Madhyama qualification holder as constable is contrary to the decision of the Union Government, whereunder the Union refused to recognize the educational qualification acquired from the Bihar State Madarsa Board and the Board. The decision of the Central Government not to recognize the educational qualification obtained from the Board has been annexed with the counter affidavit as part of Annexure-L. Any wrong committed by the authorities of the CRPF to consider Madhyama certification holder for appointment on post of constable in the CRPF cannot be a ground for this Court to direct Madhyama certificate holder to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in the CISF contrary to the decision of the Union Government contained in Annexure-L to the counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the Union further invited the attention of this Court towards the fact that father of the petitioner was retired from the CISF on medical grounds and his terminal benefits finalized, whereafter he died and after his death the prayer for compassionate - 3 - appointment has been made, which is not maintainable as on the date of death of the father of the petitioner he stood already retired. Aforesaid submission is being refuted by the counsel for the petitioner. He states that true it is that father of the petitioner died after being superannuated on medical grounds but before he attained the age of superannuation and thus petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is allowed to those who die in harness. Harness means while in active service and does not include those retired on medical grounds. In the circumstances, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner died after superannuation on medical grounds but before actually attaining the age of superannuation will not entitle the petitioner to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 5. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)