IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4660 of 2010 1. MOST. JAIBUNNISSA @JAIBUN NESHA W/O LATE SAKRULLAH ANSARI R/O VILL.- SIRISIAN (GARLAHIYA TOLA), P.S.- NAURANGIA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 5. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAGAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN, AT BETTIAH ----------- 2/ 04/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks reinstatement in service from the date of termination i.e. 14.1.1999 and to pay her salary. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner was killed in a police firing while in service. It is acknowledged that he was not in government service. The petitioner came to be appointed on that ground but was subsequently terminated. She questioned her termination in C.W.J.C. No.273/02. The Court declined to interfere with the termination, observing that she may be considered for regular appointment in future along with others. Nonetheless, despite representations her case has not been considered. The Court had also observed that she could pursue matters separately for compensation under the family benefit scheme promised by the District Magistrate. It is therefore submitted that if the former - 2 - relief cannot be granted, the second relief merits consideration. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that the observation of the Court on the earlier occasion was only for a consideration in accordance with law if the petitioner had applied in response to an advertisement and had to be considered along with others. This Court finds substance in the submission of the respondents that no directions were given by this Court in 2002 for a singular consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment contrary to Article-14 of the Constitution of India. This Court only observed that she may be considered for regular appointment in future along with others. The connotation of the words “regular appointment” takes within its ambit an advertisement, an application submitted along with others and a selection based on comparative assessment. That is not the case of the petitioner. If that were not enough, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of termination passed in January, 1999 in a writ application preferred in March, 2010. The writ application is dismissed to that extent. Issues of appointment in government service and grant of compensation for wanton firing by the police as noticed in the order of this Court are different issues. There is no right to appointment in government service, but only a right to be considered in accordance with law. - 3 - But, under Article-21 of the Constitution of India there is a fundamental right to personal liberty and that no life can be deprived except according to procedure established by law. A claim for compensation against a Welfare State shall undoubtedly lie thereunder for violation of this constitutional right, as held in more than one judgment of the Apex Court. If the petitioner represents for compensation as observed in the earlier order in C.W.J.C. No.273/02, let that claim be considered in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. Considering that she is a widow, it is directed that the claims, if found acceptable, or to the extent that it may be found acceptable, must be paid within the same period. While taking such decision respondent No.4 shall be obliged to adequately take into consideration the recital in the communication of the Sub-divisional Officer, Bagaha dated 14.8.2007 that the husband of the petitioner was killed in a police firing on 26.8.1992. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)