RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's father, while working as Peon in the Sone Canal Division, Arwal, under the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, died, in harness, on 15.04.2007. The appellant filed, on 04.08.2008, an application before competent authority for his appointment on compassionate ground. Since no final decision was taken by the respondents upon his application for appointment on compassionate ground, the appellant preferred a writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, giving rise to Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, CWJC No. 15539 of 2012. A learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ application by order, dated 18.12.2013, on two grounds. Firstly, as on the date of order, dated 18.12.2013, the appellant did not possess the very basic qualification prescribed even for Class IV (Group-D) post inasmuch as the minimum educational qualification, prescribed for Group-D post, is 10th Class pass; whereas the appellant did not, admittedly, have such a qualification. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner was not qualified to be considered for appointment as he had crossed the maximum age criteria fixed for such an appointment.

(2.) The present intra Court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred against the said order of the learned Single Judge passed, on 18.12.2013, in Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, .

(3.) Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has made very short submission to the effect that the appellant's eligibility for the purpose of his appointment on compassionate ground was required to be considered on the basis of the law as it existed on the date of his application for such appointment and subsequent change, if any, in the rules of appointment, could not have taken away his right to be considered, for, the delay in taking decision on the petitioner's appointment was solely attributable to the State respondents. He has contended that this has been consistent view of this Court and has relied upon, in this regard, the following decisions, which were not noticed by learned Single Judge: