BRAJENDRA PRASAD PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father died on 28th December 1981, after serving for long seventeen years as Headmaster in the Primary School, Gopiya Toli, Purnia He left behind his widow, three sons and two daughters. None of then is an earning member, on account of premature of the petitioner's father, the economic condition of the family became critical, there being no other source of income. The petitioner, therefore, applied in the form prescribed by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 18th March, 1983, to the District Superintendent of Education, Purnia (Respondent no. 6), for his appointment on the post of a teacher on compassionate ground Anukampa which was recommended by him and forwarded to the Directorate of Education, Bihar, Patna. When the petitioner made that application, he was 17 years of age. The application so forwarded by respondent no. 6 to the Education Department was returned to respondent no. 6 in September, 1983, by the Deputy Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna, with an observation that, due to under age, i.e., below 18 years, the petitioner could not be appointed on the basis of Anukampa (Annexure-3).

(2.) When the petitioner attained the age of 18 years, he, once again, sent his original application with all enclosures to the higher authorities for considering his case of such appointment. The same was forwarded in April, 1985, to the Deputy Director of Education again for considering the case of the petitioner. The Joint Secretary of the Education Department returned the same to the District Education Officer in view of the decision of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department stating that, the power of appointment on the basis of Anukampa was decentralised to District level under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate of that district. Accordingly, the petitioner as also the District Magistrate were informed with a direction to place the case of the petitioner before the Committee headed by the District Magistrates as the Chairman of the Committee. Thereafter, the District Development Officer-cum-Secretary of the Appointment Committee (Respondent No. 10) on the basis of Anukampa, vide his letter dated 16th June, 1986, contained in Annexure-6, informed the petitioner that his application had been rejected on the sole ground that he did not file application within the prescribed period of limitation of two years as datermined by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. The same has been challanged in this writ application. The petitioner, thereafter submitted an application to the Officer Incharge, Public Complaint Cell, Purnia, in or about August, 1987, enumerating all the facts but no reply was received.

(3.) There are peculiar circumstances in this case. When the father of the petitioner died in harness, the petitioner had just passed his matriculation examination in the year 1981 in Second Division and because of the loss of his father he could not take up higher education. When he applied for his appointment on compassionate ground (Anukampa), he was under age, i.e., below 18 years, and, on that ground, his application was not considered by respondent No. 7. When the petitioner completed 18 years of age, he applied once again for such appointment oa compassionate ground which was rejected by respondent No. 10 by his order contained in Annexure-6 on the ground that the petitioner did not apply within two years from the date of the death of his father which was the requirement as per the rule laid down by the personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. It may be noticed that, according to the circular issued by the said Department regarding appointment on the basis of Anukampa, whenever a controversy regarding relaxation of any rule is raised then it became necessary to obtain the approval from the personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. The said circular is contained in Annexurr-9.