IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9130 of 2007 Anil Kumar, son of late Sheopujan Singh, R/o Village Jonha, P.S. Karpi, Distt. Arwal. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 3. The S.D.O., Bakhri, Begusarai. 4. Sunil Kumar, Son of Sheopujan Singh, Resident of village Jonha, P.S. Karpi, District Arwal. ------- Respondents ----------- 2 6.4.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 2500 of 2011 I.A. No. 2500 of 2011 has been filed by one Sunil Kumar seeking intervention on the ground that he has also an interest in the subject matter of the writ application, being the compassionate appointment, as he also is the son of the deceased employee late Sheopujan Singh. For the reasons mentioned in this application, I.A. No. 2500 of 2011, the prayer made there is allowed and Sunil Kumar is directed to be added as respondent no.4 to this writ application. Let necessary correction in the cage column of the writ application be made by the office. 2 CWJC No.9130 of 2007 Coming to the merit of this case, this Court would find that the direction sought therein for considering the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground can have no exception in law, inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased employee. The objection raised by the respondent no.4 that the petitioner had never filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed proforma has in fact been answered by the counsel for the State by pointing out that since there was an objection raised by the respondent no.4 as also his mother, the controlling authority had not accepted the application filed by the petitioner. To that extent, the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph no.11 of the writ application also completely clinches the issue that it was somehow the official respondent no.3 who had connived with the respondent no.4 in not even accepting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate 3 ground though his objection against the proposed candidature and filing of the application of respondent no.4 was made known by the petitioner by filing his application vide Annexure-2 to the writ application, whereafter, the petitioner was also asked by the office of the Anchal Adhikari, Bakheri to substantiate his such objection vide letter no. 828 dated 9.11.2006 and in response thereof, the petitioner had also again appeared before the authority and had made it known that he himself was willing to be appointed on compassionate ground. If the application of the petitioner was not accepted on account of the dispute raised by the step-mother or step-brother (respondent no.4), that cannot be a reason for non- consideration of the case of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, this writ application with the aforementioned grievance came to be filed on 26.7.2007 i.e. well within the period of limitation of five years and therefore, this Court would now direct the authority to accept the application of the petitioner in prescribed proforma and 4 consider the same for appointment on compassionate ground. At this stage, counsel for the respondent no.4 would submit that there is no law that the eldest son alone would qualify for appointment on compassionate ground. True it is that in the light of the policy of compassionate appointment, the wife gets first preference followed by son, unmarried daughter and widow of the pre-deceased son in that seriatum but, then, if a question would arise that the two sons are competing for appointment on compassionate ground, the elder son will always have a better say, inasmuch as, he is expected to support the family. It is only when the eldest son is disqualified in any respect that a younger son can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. That being so, the respondents, while considering the case of the petitioner or any other applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, would decide the matter keeping in view that the petitioner is the eldest son and unless he is disqualified 5 under the Government policy, he will have a first right of being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Since the matter has remained pending before the authority and this Court for a period of four to five years, this Court would direct the authority to ensure that the case of the petitioner is considered for appointment on compassionate ground by the head of the office of the father of the petitioner where he was employed last as also by the concerned District Compassionate Appointment Committee within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order so that if the petitioner is recommended for appointment, he also gets his appointment on compassionate ground within the aforesaid period. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)