IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8782 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR, son of late Ram Naresh Kumar, resident of village and P.O. Chesi, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector cum Chairman of District Compassionate Appointment Committee, patna 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Patna West, Patna … Respondents ----------- 2. 6.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner assails the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejecting his application for appointment on compassionate ground by taking a plea that the finding recorded therein that the application of the petitioner was time barred is based on error of record. The Compassionate Appointment Committee while rejecting the case of the petitioner has held as follows: ^^ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q fnukad 14-6-98 dk gqbZ gSA foHkkx ls vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnd dk vkosnu i= i=kad 2195 fnukad 27-12-05 ds }kjk e`R;q dh frfFk ls 7 o"kksZa ds ckn izkIr gqvk gSA dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds ladYi la[;k&2822 fnukad 27-04-95 ds vuqlkj vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= nsus dh le; lhek e`R;q dh frfFk ls 5 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr gSA ml le; vkosnd ukckfyx FkkA lfefr }kjk 2 lE;d fopkjksijkar fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS fd ;g ekeyk dkyckf/kr gksus ds dkj.k vkosnu&i= vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA fu;ksDrk&v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; iVuk vapy] iVuk** Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was filed on 3.4.2003 but it has been wrongly mentioned in the aforementioned resolution that such application was filed on 27.12.2005. This aspect of the matter in fact has been specifically addressed to by the respondents in their counter affidavit, wherein they have not only asserted the fact with regard to filing of the application for appointment on compassionate ground on 2.6.2005 but have also enclosed the document in support of such claim. To that extent paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “That the petitioner made his application for the first time for appointment on compassionate ground on 2.6.2005 to the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Patna West.” The connected document, Annexure „A‟, again is in the handwriting of the 3 petitioner and that also nowhere refers to any earlier application filed by the petitioner in the year 2003 much less on 3.4.2003. As a matter of fact when the petitioner has also not filed any rejoinder affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit and its Annexure „A‟ it will have to be held that there was no such application filed by the petitioner on 3.4.2003. In fact the authorities also had made a detailed enquiry in respect of the aforementioned claim of the petitioner of filing his application on 3.4.2003 and from Annexure „D‟ to the counter affidavit it would be clear that they too have found no such application dated 3.4.2003 in existence. Once this aspect becomes clear that the application of the petitioner was filed on 2.6.2005 and was received by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 27.12.2005 there would be no difficulty in holding that there is no error of record in the finding arrived by the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the application of the petitioner being time barred. Under the Government policy such application has to be 4 filed within a period of five years from the date of death which in the case of the petitioner is 13.6.2003 in view of the admitted fact that his father had died on 14.6.1998. Thus, this Court would find that the application filed by the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on 2.6.2005 was clearly barred by limitation in terms of the Government policy. There would be in fact another facet which has also been rightly considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee while rejecting the case of the petitioner for his appointment, inasmuch as on the date of death of his father i.e. 14.6.1998 the petitioner was a minor, his date of birth being 23.2.1986 and the petitioner continued to be a minor even in the period of next five years, when the period of limitation for filing application for compassionate appointment had expired, inasmuch as the petitioner became major only on 23.2.2004. That in fact by itself would expose the false claim of the petitioner of filing an application on 3.4.2003, a date on which the petitioner was admittedly a minor. Once this 5 aspect becomes clear, the case of the petitioner even otherwise would be covered by the ratio of the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414, laying down that a minor cannot be appointed on compassionate ground and if he would not attain the majority within the period of limitation, inasmuch as he would be disentitled for appointment on compassionate ground. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned resolution passed by the Compassionate Appointment Committee. There is in fact no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/