STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th March 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2071 of 2007, the respondents State of Bihar and others have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The respondents-writ petitioners are the dependant children of the government employees who died in harness. It is not in dispute that the deceased parent of each writ petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in a Government school. Each such Assistant Teacher died in harness. The claim of the writ petitioners for compassionate employment in Government service was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") during the Years 2002 and 2003. The Committee in respect of the dependant members of the deceased Assistant Teachers recommended that such dependants be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government schools. Pursuant to the said recommendation, some 11 persons were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government schools. We are informed at the Bar that the said persons are still serving as Assistant Teacher in the Government schools. Nevertheless, in spite of the recommendation made by the Committee, the petitioners were not offered compassionate appointment.

(3.) The petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 14391 of 2004. By judgment and order dated 6th April 2005, the learned single Judge was pleased to allow the said petition. The appellants were directed to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in Government schools as recommended by the Committee. The said judgment was challenged by the State of Bihar in Letters Patent Appeal No. 697 of 2005. By judgment and order dated 3rd January 2006, the Division Bench was pleased to hold that the petitioners did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the National Council for Teachers' Education. The petitioners, therefore, could not be appointed as teacher on compassionate ground. The Bench further held that the recommendation made by the Committee did not create a vested right to appointment on the posts recommended by the Committee. Nevertheless, the Bench directed the appellants to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment on appropriate posts. Pursuant to the said direction, the Committee once again considered the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment in the State service. Under its report dated 27th February 2006, the Committee recommended that the petitioners be appointed in Government service on non-teaching Class III posts.