IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8252 of 2008 BEENA DEVI, W/O LATE DEV NARAYAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE BALWAHA, POST SIMRAHA, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.COLLECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, SAHARSA. 3.ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, STATISTICS, KOSI COMMISSINARY, SAHARSA. 4.DIRECTOR, STATISTICS, EVOLUTION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. .............RESPONDENTS. 02 26-04-2011 Having heard Mrs. Mallika Mazumdar, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that the planted rejection of the case of the petitioner by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 21.03.2005, on the ground that earlier the case of the petitioner which was rejected on 21.07.2001, may not be the correct way of deciding the claim for appointment of the petitioner on the compassionate ground. There is no counter affidavit in this case and the counsel for the State has referred to some instructions that he has received including the letter dated 04.10.2006, addressed to the Assistant Director of Statistics, Kosi Division, Saharsa, wherein the establishment of Deputy Collector, Saharsa, had informed that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground despite being placed in the meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 21.03.2005, was not considered fit in view of the earlier order of rejection of the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It has to be noted that the husband of the petitioner died on 04.04.1999, at the point of time, when the petitioner on her own showing was around 41 years of age. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground having crossed the maximum age limit was one of the consideration that could have been made in the meeting of the Compassionate Appointment committee held on 27.07.2001, but that was not the reason of rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and the committee in fact had rejected her case, only on the ground that she did not fulfil the minimum requisite qualification for appointment on class-IV post i.e having passed class-VIII examination. Admittedly, the petitioner at that point of time had passed only examination of class-V and therefore, such rejection on 27.07.2001, cannot be said to be bad in law. The question however would be, if the husband of the petitioner died on 04.04.1999 and the petitioner was eligible for filing her application up to 03.04.2004 and that she had done so, by filing an application on 18.03.2004, this time claiming to have passed an equivalent examination of the matriculation examination namely madhayama examination for Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the competent authority ought to have reconsidered the case on merits instead of straightway refusing to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground of earlier rejection dated 27.07.2001. By now it is well settled that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right but then the procedure laid down for consideration has to be followed by the authorities and if there be any error in the decision making process, this Court can definitely interfere to the extent of directing reconsideration from the stage of such error had crept into. Admittedly, an application of the petitioner was filed on 18.03.2004, from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner on 04.04.1999, which was well within time and therefore, this Court would direct to reconsider all the aspects of the petitioner's eligibility including her age as on 18.03.2004 and also Ranjan the financial resources that she after the death of her husband has got. If it is found that the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground is permissible under the policy of the State Government laid down in the circular dated 05.10.1991, the same may be made but if for any reason the petitioner is not found eligible, she must be communicated the reasons for rejecting her case for appointment on compassionate ground. Let it be made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner but has directed the authorities to examine the case of the petitioner within a period of six months, in the light of the observations made above. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)