IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12587 of 2007 1.LAKSHMI BHATT, W/O LATE BHUPENDRA BHATT. 2.MONIKA BHATT, D/O LATE BHUPENDRA BHATT. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-ALAM NAGAR, P.S. ALAM NAGAR, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA,AT PRESENT MOHALLA-POSTAL PARK NEAR TEMPO STAND, RAM NAGAR ROAD,(KAIYASTH TOLI), P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT BIHAR, PATNA. 3.CENTRAL COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ……………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K.P. Singh, and Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocates. For the State: Mr. J. P. Karn, Sr. Advoate-AAG-4 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, A.C to AAG.4. ----------- 02 / 08.04.201 1 Heard counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the State. This is the third round of litigation brought forward by the petitioners before this Court seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner no. 1 claiming to be the widow of Late Bhupendra Bhatt who had died in harness on 25.5.2000 had filed application for appointment on compassionate which was rejected by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on 12.4.2001, on the ground of she was not qualified for being appointed on a class-III post. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C No. 13634 of 2001 which was allowed by an order dated 11.10.2001 in following terms:- 2 “It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as per Clause 6 of the Government Circular dealing with the appointment on compassionate ground, a lady candidate is required to be literate and therefore, the petitioner was not required to be Class VIII passed. The Circular of the Government has been brought on record, marked as Annexure-5 to the writ application. Clause 6 of the circular states that the qualification in cases of female candidate can be relaxed and the candidate is only required to be literate.” It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as per Clause 6 of the government Circular dealing with the appointment on compassionate ground, a lady candidate is required to be literate and therefore, the petitioner was not required to be Class 8 passed. The circular of the Government has been brought on record, marked as Annexure 5 to the writ application, Clause 6 of the Circular states that he qualification in cases of female candidates can be relaxed and the candidate is only required to be literate. In view of this, the authorities could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and thus, the matter requires fresh consideration. This application is accordingly, allowed and the order, as contained in Anexure1, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no. 3 to reconsider the same for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in light of the Government Circular." In the light of the order of this Court dated 11.10.2001, in C.W.J.C. NO.13634 of 2001, the authorities had reconsidered the case of the petitioner and an order dated 27.12.2001, was passed whereby the prayer of the petitioner no. 1, for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was again rejected holding that she did not possess 3 requisite minimum qualification for being appointed on a Class-IV post. This Court in the resultant writ petition, filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 27.12.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 1211 of 2002 had again examined the matter at length and had held as follows:- “In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on compassionate ground.” In fact the plea of discrimination also raised by the petitioner was negatived by this Court in the detailed order dated 30.10.2002, which is also reported in the case of Lakshmi Bhatt vs The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2002(4) PLJR 870, wherein learned Single Judge had also made certain observations which being relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:- “Mr. Jha then appeals to the court to treat the petitioner with sympathy. He points out that the petitioner is a widow and has to look-after a large family and to mitigate her hardship this Court should exercise its prerogative and direct for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. I am conscious of the miseries of the petitioner and her family as also the principle that justice should be blended with sympathy. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification and as such, the decision not to appoint her cannot be faulted and the mandamus sought for can not be granted. However, in my opinion, the petitioner should not lose heart. The resolution of the State Government dated 05.10.1991 which was provided for appointment on 4 compassionate ground, as amended by Resolution No. 2822 dated 27.04.1995, contemplates of filing application for appointment on compassionate ground within five years from the date of death of the Government servant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband died on 15.05.2000 and as such, the petitioner is permitted in law to lay claim till 14th of May 2005. Petitioner, if so advised, may, in the meanwhile, pursue her studies and pass the VIIIth class examination and then lay claim for appointment on compassionate ground within the period referred to above. In case, the petitioner passes the examination and files application before the expiry of the period referred to above, respondents shall consider her case afresh in accordance with law and shall not reject the same on the ground that her prayer for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected earlier.” It appears that thereafter, the petitioner had again filed an application for compassionate appointment by claiming that she had passed class-VIII examination. Such claim of the petitioner was sought to be examined by scrutinizing the certificates produced by her for its verification In course of such verification, the District Superintendent of Education in his report contained in letter dated 27.02.2004, had intimated as follows:- i=kad 187 izs"kd] Jh fojpha flag ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] x;kA lsok esa] Jh Hk`xqukFk f}osnh] ljdkj ds mi lfpo [kuu ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx fcgkj ljdj] iVukA x;k fnukad 27 Qjojh 04 fo"k;& Jherh y{eh HkV~B ifr Lo0 HkwisUnz HkV~B xzke&iks0& vkyeuxj] dksrokyh] x;k ds uke ls fuxZr izek.k i= dh lR;rk ds lEcU/k esA 5 iz"k; & Hkonh; i= la0 fo011&19@2000 240A,e] iVuk fnukad 4-2-04A egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d izlaxk/khu i= ds dze esa lknj lwfpr djuk gS fd Jhefr y{eh HkV~B ifr Lo0 HkwisUnz HkV~ xk-&iks0& vkyeuxj dksrokyh x;k ds uke ls fuxZr oxZ v"Ve dh okf"kZd ijh{kk 2002 ds ijh{kksRrhZ.k ls lEcfU/kr tkap fd;k x;k tkap ds dze esa izfrosnu fuEuor gS& iz/kkuk/;kid ifj"kn e/; fo|ky; ijS;k ftyk x;k us lwfpr fd;k gS fd Jh erh y{eh HkV~ firk Jh fo".kq HkV` uke dh ,d Nk=k fo|ky; esa i<+rh Fkh tks fo/kok efgyk ugha Fkh] fo|ky; esa miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij budk tUe frfFk 5 tuojh 1987 gSA tc fd fo|ky; ifjR;kx izek.ki= esa tUe frfFk 1967 vafdr gS tks xyr gS D;ksafd 35 o"kZ dh mez esa dksbZ Hkh O;fDr oxZ v"Ve esa ugha i<+ ldrh gS vkSj ugha bl mez es fdlh izkjafHkd esa fo|ky; esa budk ukekadu gks ldrk gSA fo'oklHkktu g0@& ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] x;kA vuq0& vuqe.My f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lnj] x;k dk i=kad 240 fnukad 23-12-03 2- iz/kkuk/;kid] ifj"kn e/; fo0 ijS;k }kjk fuxZr ¼vki ds }kjk Hkstk x;k izek.ki= dh Nk;kizfr½ 3- iz/kkuk/;kid dk i= fnukad 15-11-03 dh Nk;kizfr 4- voj ize.My f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lnj x;k i= 267 fnukad 12-12-03 ,oa mlds lkFk layXu ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu i= ,oa izos'k i= dh Nk;kizfrA In the light of the aforementioned report, when the matter therefore was placed before the State Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 5.12.2005, it had rejected the claim of appointment of petitioner no. 1 giving the following reasons:- Lo0 HkwisUnz HkV~V dh fo/kok iRuh Jherh y{eh HkV~V dh vuqdaikRe fu;qfDRk dk ekeyk ckf/kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ugh jgus ds dkj.k fnukad 7 2001 dh dsUnzh; vuqdEik lfefr }kjk vLohd`r dj fn;k x;k F ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj Jherh HkV~V }kjk v"V mRrhZ.krk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij fnukad 4-4-2003 dh dsUnz vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd }kjk oxZ 4 ¼osrueku 2550@3200½ ds fy vuq'kalk dh x;hA fu;qfDr fd;s tkus ds dze esa v"Ve mRrh.kZrk izek.k i iz'kklh foHkkx }kjk =qfViw.kZ ik;k x;kA vr% Jherh HkV~V ls iz'kklh foHk }kjk dgk x;k fd ;fn muds ifjoklj esa vU; lnL; ukSdjh djus ;ks gksa rks mlds fy, vkosnu nsaA rnuqlkj i`=h dk vkosnu fn;k x;k gSA ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k e`r ljdkjh lsod dh iR Jhefr y{eh HkV~V ls lacaf/kr Fkk vkSj mudh i{k esa vuq'kalk dh tk pq 6 FkhA ijUrq mudk 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] x;k ds i=kad 187 fnukad 27-2-2004 ds vkyksd esa tkyh izrhr gksrk gSA pwafd Jherh y{eh HkV~V }kjk tkylkth iw.kZ rjhds ls 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= gkfly dj izLrqr fd;k x;k izrhr gksrk gSA pawfd Jherh y{eh HkV~V kjk tkylkth iw.kZ rjhds ls 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= gkfly dj izLrqr fd;k x;k izrhr gksrk gS vr% bl vkyksd esa muds LFkku ij mudh iq=h ds vkosnu ij fopkj ughas fd;k tk ldrk gSA lkFk gh mijksDr vkyksd esa Lo0 HkV~V dh iRuh dh vuqdEik ij fu;qfDr dh vuq'kalk dks jn~n fd;k x;kA** The petitioners despite aforesaid decision kept on pressing their claim and the State Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 13.06.2007 had again rejected the same recording as follows:- ^^fn0 7-2-2001 dh dsUnzh; vuqdEik lfefr }kjk vkosfndk dks ckafNr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vizkIr jgus ds dkj.k muds ekeys dks vLohd`r dj fn;k x;k Fkk ¼i`0 175@i0½ ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 ua0 1211@02 esa fnukad 30-10-2002 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k fd ;fn oknh fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ¼14-5-05½ rd vkBoka esa v/;;u dj mRrh.kZrk izkIr dj ysrh gS ,oa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq nkok djrh gs rks fu;ekuqlkj mudh fu;qfDr ij u;s fljs ls fopkj gksA mDr vkyksd esa v"Ve mRrhZ.krk izek.ki= ds vk/kkj ij bl ekeys ij fnukad 4-4-03 dh dsUnzh; vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd esa iqu% fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj mUgsa oxZ&4 ¼osrueku 2550&3200½ ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lfefr }kjk vuq'kkflr fd;k x;kA iz'kklh foHkkx }kjk muls dgk x;k fd ifjokj dks dksbZ vU; lnL; ;fn ukSdjh djus ;ksX; gks rks vkosnu nsaA mDr ds vkyksd esa mudh iq=h ¼f}rh;½ lqJh eksfudk HkV~V dk vkosnu iz'kklh foHkkx dks izkIr gqvkA fnukad 5-10-2005 dh dsUnzh; vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd esa bl ekeys ij iqu% fopkj gqvkA lfefr }kjk Jherh y{eh HkV~V dh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dh vuq'kalk dks jn~n djrs gq, fu.kZX; fy;k x;k fd ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k e`r ljdkjh lsod dh iRuh Jherh y{eh HkV~V ls lacaf/kr Fkk vkSj muds i{k esa vuq'kalk Hkh dh tk pqdh FkhA ijUrq mudk 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd ds i=kad 18 fnukad 22-2-2005 ds vkyksd esa tkyh izrhr gksrk gSA pqafd Jherh y{eh HkV~V }kjk tkylkth iw.kZ rjhds ls 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= gkfly dj izLrqr fd;k 7 x;k izrhr gksrk gSA vr% muds LFkku ij mudh iq=h ds vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA rRi'pkr lqJh eksfudk HkV~V }kjk vH;kosnu fn;k x;k ftl ij iz'kklh foHkkx ls earO; ekaxk x;kA iz'kklh foHkkx }kjk eaRO; ugha nsdj lafpdk gh Hkst nh x;hA iz'kklh foHkkx dks ijke'kZ fn;k x;k fd rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh x;k ds ek/;e ls Li"V izfrosnu izkIr djsaA rRi'pkr vius earO; ds lkFk Hkstus ij fopkj djsaA bl dze esa iz'kklh foHkkx }kjk ftyk inkf/kdkjh x;k ls izfrosnu izkIr dj fu;qfDr dh vuq'kalk ds lkFk lafpdk Hksth x;h gSA foHkkx dh vuqdqy vuaq'kalk ds ckctwn foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k }kjk crk;k x;k fd ftyk inkf/kdkjh x;k ds izfrosnu ds vuqwlkj Jherh y{eh HkV~V dk 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= tkyh izrhr gksrk gSA bl vkyksd esa fnukad 5-10-05 dh vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ij iquZfopkj dh vko';drk ugha le>h x;hA** It would thus be clear that the sole reason for rejection of the case of the petitioner no. 1, on compassionate ground was production of a forged certificates of her having passed class- VIII examination. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforementioned reason would say that the finding of forgery arrived at by the authorities is wholly misplaced and in fact it was some omission or wrong amendment in the dates of the school admission register which may have led to incorrect entry also in the certificate issued by the authorities of the school as with regard to passing of class-VIII examination by the petitioner no. 1. In the opinion of this Court such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner would not require any further 8 consideration, inasmuch as, not only the identity of the person in the said report of the District Superintendent of Education has been clearly doubted by pointing out that a lady named as Lakshmi Bhatt, who was student of the school was not a widow lady and the date of birth of such Lakshmi Bhatt was 05.01.1967, whereas the date of birth shown in the School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner has been shown to be in the year 1987. In this context the clear cuttings and interpolation made in the Class-VIII examination passing certificate produced by the petitioner no. 1 in this writ application vide Annexure-6, issued by District Evaluation Committee would also leave noting for speculation that her date of birth in the school records was 5.1.1987 which was sought to be overwritten by changing it to 5.1.1967. All these aspects may have a direct bearing on the crucial issue with regard to petitioner no. 1, to have ever attended the school and passed class-VIII examination as a regular student. The petitioner no. 1 a lady of six children having also a married daughter claims to have taken admission in class-VIII had at an advanced age of 35 years as declared by her and gone to school as a student for whole of the year, 9 whereafter she has appeared in the annual examination in December 2002 as a regular student. If that be so, the observations made by the District Superintendent of Education Gaya in the light of evidence of forgery in school records and certificate is very meaningful. Be that as it may, this Court is satisfied that the conclusion of forgery in the certificate of petitioner no. 1 drawn by the authority in the proceeding of the stale Compassionate Appointment Committee headed by Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department does not suffer from any error. It has to be noted that the certificate in question shows that the petitioner was admitted in the school on 05.04.2002, before the judgment of this Court dated 30.10.2002. This Court in fact was never made aware that the petitioner was already undergoing studies in class-VIII and that the petitioner could obtain requisite qualification. The same is also manifest from the fact that the petitioner’s date of birth in the admission register was shown to be 25.01.1967, whereas, Form-I issued by the District Education Committee, Gaya shows the date of birth as 05.01.1987 later on penned though to make it appear as 5.1.1967. Both these facts taken 10 altogether collectively would go to show that the authorities were unjustified in drawing the conclusion that there was forgery in the certificate produced by the petitioner claiming to have passed class-VIII examination. Consequently the decision taken by the State Compassionate Appointment Committee in rejecting the case of the petitioner on does not suffer from any error. Coming now to the facts of the case of petitioner no. 2, seeking her appointment on compassionate ground, as this Court had never given liberty to petitioner no. 2 to agitate her claim, the committee was not required to have gone into, in this aspect and it has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner no. 2. Appointment on compassionate ground is not hereditary right, which was sought to be enforced by the petitioner no. 2 after ten years of the date of death deceased employee only after the case of the petitioner no. 1, was rejected on three occasions. In this regard it has to be also kept in mind that the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is 1.1.1987 and thus on 15.5.2000 when her father had died she was a minor. Her application filed on 3.3.2004 for her own appointment on compassionate ground at a point of time when she was still a minor and when her mother the petitioner no. 1 was 11 still pressing her own claim even till 13.06.2007 before the department for own appointment on compassionate ground, was rightly rejected as the petitioner no. 2 was ineligible on account of being minor. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)