SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a single petitioner before this court who seeks a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while he was in service. The father of the petitioner, namely Ram Anugrah Thakur died on 5.6.2000. At the time of his death he was working as the Head Master in a Middle School. Ram Anugrah Thakur was married to one Mandvi Devi who gave birth to three daughters, one of whom is married. The deceased Ram Anugrah Thakur then 'married ' Neelam Devi, the mother of the petitioner who gave birth to two sons, the petitioner being the elder one. Following the death of Ram Anugrah Thakur the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and according to his case the request for his appointment was made with the concurrence and approval of Mandvi Devi (the first wife of the deceased) and his two unmarried daughters as well. As he did not get any favourable response from the concerned authorities he came to this court seeking appropriate direction for his appointment.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed in this case the respondent authorities have, for all intent and purpose rejected his claim for appointment. According to the respondent authorities, the present petitioner is the son of the second 'wife ' of the deceased employee and, therefore, he is not covered by the scheme of compassionate appointments and is not entitled to appointment. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant 'sConduct Rules, 1976 prohibits a government employee from entering into second marriage during the life time of the first wife and the so called 'marriage ' of the deceased employee with Neelam Devi was, therefore, in violation of the prohibitory rules apart from being void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) I am unable to appreciate and accept the stand of respondent authorities based on rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant 'sConduct Rules, 1976. The provisions of rule 23 might have been invoked to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the deceased Ram Anugrah Thakur during his life time for offending the service rules and he might have been removed from service on that ground. But on the basis of rule 23 of the Conduct Rules it would not be open to question the legitimacy of the petitioner 'sbirth.