IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13008 of 2003 NAVIN KUMAR CHAUBEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 02/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as a police constable on 1.5.1988. The order stated that the appointment was being made in pursuance of police order No.202/88 in consequence of the selection held in the Rajendra Stadium, Siwan and Gopalganj after physical and character verification on 18/19/20.4.1988. On 19.10.2002 he was issued a show cause notice that he was appointed in pursuance of a vacancy created by voluntary retirement of his father who was a constable on 1.5.1988. He was asked why his services be not terminated. The petitioner replied to the same and after consideration of the same his appointment was held to be illegal by order dated 25.2.2002 and his services terminated. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed. Initially this Court was under the impression that the petitioner had been appointed in pursuance 2 of a selection process by an appointment order No.202/88 which was sought to be inextricably mixed up with the issue of voluntary retirement of his father and compassionate appointment. This Court, therefore, directed the respondents to bring on record the order No.202/88 which is now Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. It is not an order of appointment of the petitioner. On the contrary, it provides for the procedure for appointment of constables. Any appointment on compassionate ground can only be in terms of the scheme regulating the same. The petitioner has been unable to place any scheme of the government providing for compassionate appointment in lieu of voluntary retirement. The petitioner may have been a participant in the selection process at Siwan. That is not the issue for consideration. It is apparent from Annexure-I and K to the supplementary counter affidavit that notwithstanding that he may have been an applicant under the advertisement his appointment was not in pursuance of the advertisement, but consequent to his father taking voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds. The selection chart refers to others as 3 appointed by the selection Board. The petitioner is referred to be appointed by the Superintendent of Police, Siwan in view of A.I.G. (P) letter dated 11.4.88 (memo. No.3741/P2) prior to the date of selection itself. The appointment on the face of it being outright illegal, the question of a major punishment of dismissal necessitating a departmental proceeding does not arise. This application is dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)