IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16592 of 2007 POONAM THAKUR (DEVI), W/O LATE RANDHIR KUMAR THAKUR, WIDOW DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE GANESH THAKUR (CONSTABLE NO. 648), R/O VILLAGE MADHUBANI, P.O. PATAHI, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ……………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (PERSONAL), BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, PATNA AT PATNA, DISTRICT PATNA. 5.THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA AT PATNA, DISTRICT PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kr. Jha, and Mr. Umapati Jha, Adv. For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C to G.A 10. ----------- 02/ 13.04.2011 Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Mr. Jha, while assailing the impugned order dated 27.02.2007, rejecting the case of the petitioner the dependent daughter-in-law of predeceased son of Late Ganesh Thakur for appointment on compassionate ground would submit that the solitary reason given with regard to condoning the maximum age limit for appointment of the petitioner suffers from apparent error on the face of record, inasmuch as, per Chapter- 44 of Bihar Police Manual, Rule 1287 (b) thereof, the women police will 2 have the same standard and in fact also same relaxation as admissible to Scheduled Caste candidates. He would therefore, submit that if the age of the petitioner on the date of death of his father in law the deceased employee dying in harness was around 35 years, the maximum age prescribed for a Scheduled Caste candidate being 32 years, under chapter 44 readwith Rule 1287(b) of Bihar Police Manual, the relaxation required in her case was only for period of three years but the Director General cum Inspector General has rejected such prayer for condonation of age on an assumption that the petitioner required relaxation of a period of 13 years of her age. Mr. Jha, therefore, would submit that the whole matter relating to relaxation of age of the petitioner would require reconsideration especially when District Compassionate Appointment Committee had recommended the petitioner for her appointment not only for the post of constable but for even any class-III post or class-IV post in the police department. Counsel for the State on the other hand relying on his counter affidavit would submit that so far the age limit for the post of 3 constable is concerned the same is circumscribed under Article 663 of the Bihar Police Manual which infact lays down all the parameters including the age, qualification, height etc. and wherein a candidate of general category to which the petitioner belongs, must be in the age group of 18 to 23 years. He has accordingly also submitted that since, the petitioner was around 35 years of age on the date of death of her father in law relaxation for her appointment on the post of Constable under Rule 663 of Bihar Police Manual, strictly governing her cases of appointment on the post of constable. He has also sought to distinguish the provision of Chapter-44 and Rule-1287 (b) by taking a plea that they deal with the service condition for other police personel and would not cover the post of constables. He has also referred to the averments to in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner also did not fulfil the physical standard of height and/or the educational qualification. In the opinion of this Court since the impugned order is not based on either the petitioner not fulfiling the physical standard 4 or educational qualification, it will have to concentrate only on the sole reason for rejection of the case of the petitioner namely relaxation of her age. It is a well settled concept of interpretation of statute that a general provision has to be construed only to the extent it has not been circumscribed by any special provisions. Here in this case, for the post of constable the Bihar Police Manual lays down its own requisite standards prescribed under Article-663 and thus whatever requirement of age, educational qualification, physical standards are mentioned for other police personnel under Chapter 44 and Rule 1287(b) would not be applicable for the post of constable which is to be governed by the requisite condition of age, qualification and physical standard under Article 663(b) the Maximum age limit for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and women has been provided by way of maximum permissible relaxation of age limit, i.e. five years as would be apparent from the following extract of the rules which reads as follows:- "Appendix 103 (Rule 663)" As per the provisions of Rule 663 of Bihar Police Manual 1997 the 5 qualification for appointment to the post of Constable, selection process and selection criteria. 1. Age:- (a) For general category-minimum age 18 years-maximum 23 years (18-23) (b) For backward category/extremely backward category 2 years relaxation in maximum age limit i.e. (18-25) (c) For women (backward category / extremely backward category) 3 years relaxation in maximum age limit i.e. (18-26). (d) For schedule caste and scheduled tribe men and women 5 years relaxation in maximum age limit i.e. (18-28)." On a plain reading of the prescribed requirements of age, it would be clear that in the year 2005 when the father in law of the petitioner had died, the petitioner being in general category had to be in the age group of 18 to 23 years. From the reading of the rule, it is also clear that the maximum permissible relaxation allowed to the women of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is five years and therefore, if someone has to be appointed even on compassionate ground, the relaxation of maximum age could be at best of five years only. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioner by allowing relaxation to the extent of 13 years was permissible in view of the provisions of Rule 6 663. Mr. Jha, has then submitted that petitioner could be considered not only for the post of constable but for any other post as well inasmuch as such recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee was to consider the case of the petitioner on any class-III and class-IV post. The answer to the said submission however lies in the scheme of compassionate appointment which envisages appointment only against a vacant post. In Police Department particularly the establishment in which the father in law of the petitioner was working, the vacancies were only found on the post of constables and accordingly this court would not be in a position to accept the submission that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for any other class-III or class-IV post. Therefore, this court would not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner for condonation of maximum age limit by 13 years and infact when the death of the deceased employee had taken place on 29.04.2005 no useful purpose can be served now after six years of such death to ask 7 the respondents to appoint her on the post of Constable by condoning her age to the extent of 19 yeas as of new. Thus the relief prayed in this writ application cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. Nothing however, said in this order would stand in the way of the petitioner in representing her case to the Director General of Police for reconsidering her appointment on compassionate ground on any class-IV post, if the petitioner would otherwise fulfil other requisite conditions. It may be observed that the maximum age limit for a general candidate for a class-IV post would be 37 years, as on the date of the death of father in law of the petitioner. Therefore if there be any vacant class-IV post on which the petitioner can be appointed even without relaxing the age limit, her case may be considered sympathetically taking into account that the petitioner has not only lost the bread earner father in law but also her husband and has to carry the burden of the liability of the whole family which also includes the wife of the deceased employee. That being so, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to 8 file a representation for her appointment on any class-IV post in the Police Department and if such a representation is filed before the Director General cum Inspector General the same would be considered sympathetically and disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)