IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14100 of 2007 1.RITESH KARUNA KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMNATH MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE- SAUTA, P.S. AAVTAR NAGAR, DISTRICT SARAN. AT PRESENT RAJKIYA MIDDLE SCHOOL DNANARUA, SARAN. 2.SAKIL ANWAR, S/O RMJAN ALI ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE NARAON, P.S. AAVTAR NAGAR, DISTRICT SARAN. AT PRESENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, GOPALPUR. 3.RAJ SHEKHAR, S/O LATE RADHEY SHYAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SHIKARPUR CHAPRA, P.O SHIKARPUR, VIA-SONPUR, P.S. SONPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN. AT PRESENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SHIKARPUR SONPUR, SARAN. 4.DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE GANESH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MOTHAUA, P.S. MARAURHA, DISTRICT SARAN. AT PRESENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, SARAYA, HARDI TOLA. 5.BRAJENDRA RAM, S/O LAKHRAM DAS, R/O VILLAGE NAINI WEST TOLA, P.S. MUFFASSIL, CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN. AT PRESENT UTKARMIK MIDDLE SCHOOL CHOKHRA, JALALPUR. 6.SAMEER KUMAR, S/O LATE RANJEET SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MAHUAANI, P.S. SAIDPUR JHAWAR, P.S. AWATAR NAGAR, DISTRICT SARAN, AT PRESENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, JHAUWAN. ………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SARAN. 3.THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, i.e. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AT SARAN CHAPRA. 4.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA. ………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 11.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioners were recommended by District Compassionate Appointment Committee for their appointment against class-III post, they could not have 2 been appointed on an inferior post. To that extent a plea of discrimination has also been raised by the petitioners, stating that the persons having lesser qualification have been appointed against class-III post. In the considered opinion of this Court compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right against a particular post wherein whatever vacancy may be available with the Appointing Authority, has to be offered. If the person granted such an appointment, is not inclined to accept such appointment he can rightly refuse such appointment but there would be no question the recommendation of the Compassionate Appointment Committee to be binding on the Appointing Authority. Such recommendation made only, is by way of screening the person found fit for appointment on compassionate ground, under the Government policy but avibility of vacant post will always be known only to the Appointing Authority and therefore, if the petitioners have been even appointed against class-IV post or on the post of Prakhand Shikshak/Panchayat Shikshak, they cannot be 3 allowed to raise any grievance on that issue. The petitioners' case for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be reopened only on the ground of recommendation of the Committee. This aspect of the matter was settled by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case The State of Bihar & Ors vs Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar reported in 2010(3) PLJR 295, wherein probably each and every aspect relating to the position and objection of the persons recommended against class-III post by the compassionate appointment committee and yet appointed on the post of Prakhand Shikshak/Panchayat Shikshak were noticed and negatived. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Full Bench decision is the subject matter of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s). 29654 of 2010 dated 15.03.2011, where notices have been issued. In the considered opinion of this Court the Judgment of the Full Bench has not been stayed by the Apex Court is pending and therefore whatever law will be 4 laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid pending case, shall be binding on all such similar cases in terms of under Article-141 of the Constitution of India. . That being so, this application has to be dismissed and it is ordered accordingly. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)