IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2579 of 2011 ====================================================== Sajjan Kumar Prasad, son of late Munga Lal Mahato, resident of village- Dhobawalia Kothi, P.O. Jeegarahawan, Police Station- Maharajganj, District-Siwan, at present posted and working as Peon in Govt. High School, Mora, Anchal-Maharajganj, District-Siwan .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 5. The District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee through its Chairman, the District Magistrate, Siwan 6. The District Magistrate, Siwan 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Siwan 8. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Siwan 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan 10. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, District-Siwan .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra For the State : Mr. Radhika Raman GP-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 3 23-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of memo no. 234 dated 22.4.2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan by which the petitioner’s claim, for his appointment on Class-III post on compassionate ground instead of Class-IV post, has 2 been communicated as rejected by the District Compassionate Committee. Since the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, the details of the same are not required to be narrated. Suffice it to say that the petitioner had applied for and was given compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post although he had the qualification for being appointed on Class-III post also. After his appointment on a Class-IV post, the petitioner had joined on 17.3.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the District Magistrate for his appointment on Class-III post keeping in view his qualification. By the impugned order dated 22.4.2006 the decision of the District Compassionate Committee taken at its meeting dated 7.4.2006 was communicated in which the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having the qualification for appointment on Class- III post, ought to have been appointed on Class-III post and his representation for the said appointment ought to have been allowed. It is further submitted by learned counsel that other similarly situated candidates were appointed on Class-III posts by the same order and the same decision taken on 3 12.2.2005 by the District Compassionate Committee by which the petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post and, thus, the petitioner has been discriminated. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner having accepted his appointment on Class-IV post, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the said appointment and claim for appointment on Class-III post. Learned counsel also relies upon a circular letter dated 11.2.2006 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in which it has been clearly stated that once the compassionate appointment is made then giving a second benefit of compassion the said person cannot be given the benefit of either promotion or change of cadre. Lastly, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has challenge the order dated 22.4.2006 after a delay of nearly five years and that itself is sufficient ground for rejection of his writ petition. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The writ petition, as a matter of fact, is fit to be dismissed for the sole reason that it has been filed after nearly five years, when the case of the petitioner for appointment on 4 Class-III post instead of appointment on Class-IV post, was rejected. If the petitioner was satisfied for nearly five years by the said order, it is too late for him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, it has been repeatedly held by the Courts that once compassionate appointment is given and accepted then the right for such appointment comes to an end and no further claim for upgradation of post can be made. There cannot be repeated compassion. The same is also the purport of the circular dated 11.2.2006 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. So far as the question of discrimination is concerned, the petitioner, once he had been offered the appointment on Class-IV post, ought to have challenged the same immediately before the appropriate forum but he has not done that. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. S.Pandey/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)