LAWS(SC)-1996-3-106

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SAMSUZZOHA

Decided On March 22, 1996
STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
V/S
SAMSUZZOHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 2383-2384 of 1996.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) A rather unfortunate situation has been created by the orders of the High Court in interfering with the appointments made on compassionate ground by the Government. These appeals by special leave arise from different orders of the High Court of Patna. The first batch taken up is of appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2383-84/96. In this case the Government had resolved to appoint on compassionate ground the dependent son or daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness. A long list of persons awaiting such appointments was prepared by the Co-operative Department. The Department recommended candidates for certain posts depending upon the qualifications etc. A committee was constituted by the Government consisting of the Secretary, Co-operateive Department, Additional Secretary and the Registrar of the Co-operative Department. The Committee had first identified the vacant posts and then decided to make recommendations of the candidates. At that time since more than 40 posts of Class IV was available, the committee had recommended appointment of all the candidates as Class IV employees. It is also seen that 12 posts in Class III were available but they kept reserved for promotion from existing Class IV employees. The candidates who were appointed as Class IV approached the High Court by way of writ petition the first of which is CWJC No. 739/1991 titled Ghidharya Devi v. State of Bihar. The High Court by order dated August 26, 1991 directed the respondents to consider afresh their appointments to any one of the Class III posts either by promotion or fresh appointment whichever was possible in accordance with the rules and regulations. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a Review Petition. After considerable delay, the Review Petition came to be dismissed and appointments were directed to be made by April 30, 1992. Consequently, the appellant did not come in appeal to this Court against that order which thus has become final. Following the above order directions have been given in respect of different persons who had filed separate writ petitions. In some of the cases the appeals have now come to be filed before us.