IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.225 of 2008 RAJ KUMAR, son of late Kapildeo Prasad, resident of village- Bela, P. O.- Bela P.S. Lakhnaur (Madhepur),District- Madhubani. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, Education, Govt of Bihar, Patna. /…..Respondents. ----------- 5. 12.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claim of the petitioner for his being appointed on compassionate ground cannot be effectively decided by the University on account of ongoing dispute as with regard to status of the service of the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner infact was one of the non-teaching employee of Jhumak Mahaseth Dr. Dharma Priya Lal Women’s College ( J M D P L M College), Madhubani which is one of the 36 colleges which were made constituent in 4th phase pursuant to the decision of the State Government dated 19.8.1986. The matter relating to absorption of teaching and non-teaching employee of all the thirty six colleges of 4th phase has remained in controversy and in fact 2 under the order of the Apex Court, Justice S. C. Agrawal Commission was assigned the task of going into the issue of eligibility of teaching and non-teaching employee for their absorption in the service of the University pursuant to their colleges being made constituent. The report submitted by Justice S. C. Agrawal Commission which was accepted by the Apex Court, did not contain the name of the father of the petitioner, and accordingly the claim of absorption of the father of the petitioner had come to an end in his lifetime. The University however acting contrary to the recommendation of the Justice Agrawal Commission as accepted by the Apex Court had issued a notification absorbing as many as 49 persons on Class III and Class IV posts including the father of the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Zoology. Let it be noted that the post of Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Zoology was neither among the sanctioned posts for the college nor even in the recommended post upto 30.4.1986 and therefore as per the judgment of the Apex Court approving the report 3 of Justice Agrawal Commission there was no possibility of absorption of the service of the father of the petitioner. The University however having absorbed the services of the father of the petitioner by Notification dated 9.7.2005 had subsequently made a revised notification dated 21.6.2008 cancelling the entire order of absorption of 49 persons dated 9.7.2005. Said notification No. 753-2008 dated 21.6.2008 was, however, subsequently withdrawn by the University by its another notification dated 28.9.2008 and when a learned single Judge of this Court had given a direction for payment of salary, a number of writ applications as also appeal on behalf of the University was filed before this Court which were ultimately placed before the Full Bench which in his order dated 11.3.2010 since reported in 2010(2) PLJR 650 had constituted two men committee for examining the individual cases of each and every person in the light of the findings of the Justice Agrawal Commission so as to give finality to the issue of absorption of teaching and non-teaching employees in the 36 constituent colleges. The said decision, however, has been made subject matter of special leave petition and the functioning of the 4 Commission as directed by this Court has been stayed and the matter is still pending before the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, it would be difficult for this Court to direct for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground since the status of the service of the father of the petitioner is still fluid. The claim of compassionate appointment as formulated by the State Government in its policy contained in Circular dated 5.10.1991 and also adopted by the University itself stipulates that only the dependent of such deceased employee would be entitled for being considered for compassionate appointment who was working against a sanctioned post. As noted above, there can be no two views that the father of the petitioner was not working against sanctioned post as held by Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission but then if the decision of his absorption in the college is ultimately upheld, the petitioner may become eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. That being so, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate 5 ground if and when the issue with regard to absorption of the service of the father of the petitioner would become final after the judgment of the Apex Court in the pending appeal against the judgment of Full bench of this Court dated 4.3.2010. The personal appearance of the Registrar of the University is, hereby, dispensed with. kanchan/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)