IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14002 of 2011 1. Chandan Raj S/O Late Ashok Rajak Present Resident Of Vill. & P.O. Sherpur, P.S. Maner, Distt. Patna, Permenent Resident Of Vill. Ranipur, P.S. Phulwarishariff, Distt. Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Sanjay Gandhi Jaiwik Udyan, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Patna, Bihar 4. Deepka Prasad Sah, Adhyaksh Zila Shtariya Anukampa Samitti, Patna ---------------------------------- 3. 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 24.2.1999. The wife of the deceased applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected on 18.5.2002 for not meeting the requirements of educational qualifications. The order of rejection attained finality and was not questioned. On his own showing, the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.1.1991. He was therefore eight years and one month old on the date of death of his father. As a minor he was clearly ineligible to apply. Under the Government circulars the period of eligibility to apply for compassionate appointment was five years from the date of death. The petitioner did not attain majority within the time prescribed. The period of time ran out and 2 the petitioner became ineligible to apply thereafter. The fact that he may have applied thereafter, which may have wrongly been entertained and queries made, shall not vest a cause of action in the petitioner where non exist originally. An appointment on compassionate ground violates both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Courts have therefore held that any claim for compassionate appointment has to be implemented strictly in accordance with the circulars regulating the same. The claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right in the legal heirs of a deceased, as an estate of the deceased. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar) the appellant was 10 years old at the time of death and applied for compassionate appointment eight years later after he attained majority. Rejecting the claim, it was held at Paragraph-3 as follows:- “3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the 3 breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” A contrary view taken by this Court in 1997(1) PLJR 626 (Chandra Bhushan Vs. State of Bihar) was not approved by the Supreme Court. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)