IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2036 of 2006 SMT.MEENA DEVI & ANR Versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4. 11.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank. The husband/father of the petitioners died in harness on 12.7.2002 while in service of the respondent Bank. It is not in controversy that the Bank has a scheme for compassionate appointment and under which an application in accordance with law was made by petitioner no. 2 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 1.10.2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under Clause (8) of the scheme for compassionate appointment, for the posts of clerical cadre and for which the petitioner had applied to be considered, the minimum educational qualification prescribed was Matriculation. There was thus no justification for the respondents to subject him to a process of screening by an interview as no such procedure is prescribed for under Clause (8) of the scheme. Learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that Clause (8) prescribes the educational qualifications only of a candidate required to be fulfilled before he can be considered. The petitioner had applied under the clerical cadre and fulfilled the minimum educational qualification of Matriculation. But placing reliance on Clause (13) of the scheme, it was submitted that the scheme itself provided for interviews to be held of the applicants to be considered for compassionate appointment. The petitioner 2 was asked to appear at the interview when cases of persons exclusively situated like him forming a class were being considered for compassionate appointment. He submits placing before this court the proceedings of the Interview Board that the petitioner was unable to answer the questions and therefore the Interview Board did not consider him suitable for appointment. What Article 14 of the Constitution forbids is discrimination between persons similarly situated only. If the petitioner was subjected to an interview along with similarly situated persons seeking compassionate appointment, he cannot make a grievance of having been asked to appear at an interview in discriminatory manner. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule. But no fault can be found with an employer who wishes to screen the candidates from this category of compassionate appointees and no claim can be laid that there will be ipso facto automatic right to appointment. Any appointment on compassionate ground has to be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing the same. If the scheme provides for an interview for comparative assessment of inter se merits of the applicants in the compassionate category itself there is little occasion for this Court to interfere with the decision of the respondents when the petitioner has failed to qualify. Even while declining to grant any positive relief to the petitioner this Court disposes off the writ application with the observation that if the petitioner applies for a Class IV post, the respondents are expected to consider any such application 3 afresh by independent application of mind in accordance with the Rules and to be not prejudiced in any manner merely because the petitioner failed to achieve success in class III appointment. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)