IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11663 of 2008 ASADUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02- 24.9.2008 Heard Mr. Baxi S R P Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Anjani Kumar Saran, learned Standing Counsel No.20. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground consequent upon the demise of his father who was an Assistant Teacher. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Md. Qurish, the petitioner’s late father was an Assistant Teacher in the High School, Shermari, Pirpainti (Bhagalpur). He died on 19.8.2003 while still in harness. The petitioner submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was rejected by order dated 14.9.2004 (Annexure 1), on the ground that his mother was already in government service. The petitioner’s died on 26.2.2006, after she had superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a fresh application for reconsideration of his case which has also been rejected on the ground that the family has received two sets of post-retirement benefits and, therefore, their financial condition is not such so as to justify appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Law is well settled that public employment sureties in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which is possible only if the vacancies - 2 - are widely advertised and followed by a credible selection process so that every eligible citizen has the opportunity to apply for consideration. Appointment on compassionate ground has always been treated to be a back-door entry into service, and the Courts have by and large set its face against such appointments excepting where the employer has formulated a policy decision to give such appointments. Law is equally well settled that such compassionate appointment is granted to take care of the immediate needs of the family which has been deprived of its bread-earner. Equally the financial condition of the family is a very relevant factor. Another relevant factor has always been that, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then it can legitimately be declined. Furthermore, appointment on compassionate ground is available only if the employee dies in harness. In so far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner’s application was rightly rejected on 14.9.2004, because his mother was already in employment. It followed that the family had not only another earning member, but had also received post-retirement benefits admissible to his mother consequent upon the demise of his father. Therefore, the order dated 14.9.2004 cannot be faulted. Secondly, the mother died after her retirement. Therefore, the respondent authorities were perfectly justifying in declining appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. - 3 - 4. The writ petition is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl