IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11497 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar son of late HC Ajit Singh, Resident of village Gokhulpur, Post Office Bajitpur Saidat Via Bidupur Bazaar, Police Station – Bidupur, District Vaishali, Bihar Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi-11 0003 2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Block No.1, New Delhi- 110003 3. The Inspector General of Police, North Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 1410066 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Central Reserve Police Force, Kadarpur, Hariyana 5. The Additional Deputy General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Gurgaon, Hariyana 6. The Commandant, 124 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Singarbil, Agartalla, Tripura ----------- For the Petitiaoner :Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, CGC 02/ 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Gurgaon dated 21.5.2010, Annexure-5, whereunder his request for compassionate appointment on the post of constable (G.D.) has been rejected, as he failed to achieve the minimum standard for such appointment. 3. From the impugned order dated 21.5.2010, Annexure-5 itself, it appears that petitioner was considered for appointment on the post of constable (G.D.), as he expressed his inability to accept appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Follower. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the order dated 21.5.2010, Annexure-5 could be communicated 2 to the petitioner, he had informed the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., R.K. Puram, New Delhi, 66 that he is willing to be appointed on compassionate ground on the post of follower and such information should have been taken into while passing the impugned order dated 21.5.2010, Annexure-5. 5. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the aforesaid prayer. He states that when petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, he was asked by the authorities that he may be provided compassionate appointment on the post of Follower, petitioner, however, communicated in writing that he is not willing to accept such appointment whereafter he was considered for appointment on the post of Constable (G.D.) by asking him to participate in the recruitment process, but as he failed to meet the minimum standard, he could not be appointed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also confirmed the fact that after the petitioner requested the authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground, the authorities asked him whether he is willing to be considered for appointment on the post of Follower then the petitioner stated that he would like his candidature to be considered on the post of Constable (G.D.). Petitioner having given up his right for being appointed on the post of Follower, was considered for appointment on the post of Constable (G.D.) by subjecting him to the recruitment process and as he was not able to meet the minimum standard, he could not be appointed. 3 7. Counsel submitted that even at this belated stage, the authorities may be asked to consider his request contained in letter dated 20.5.2010, Annexure-6, as petitioner has to support large family of six persons and his father was killed in very difficult circumstances by the extremists. 8. Counsel for the Union of India submitted that post of Follower having been abolished and father of the petitioner died on 20.7.2001, it is not possible for the authorities to consider the request of the petitioner for such appointment. 9. In view of the fact that petitioner himself did not respond to the offer for appointment on the post of Follower given to him soon after the death of his father, I am not inclined to direct the authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Follower after nine years of the death of his father when the said post has already been abolished and further since the petitioner has been able to manage his family for nine years, the purpose of compassionate appointment is also over. 10. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)