LAWS(PAT)-1997-7-40

ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 08, 1997
ARUN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter relates to compassionate appointment. The prayer of the petitioner for such appointment has been rejected by the District Compassionate Committee in their meeting dated 20.4.1992 (Vide Annexure -A). The sole ground of rejection is "delay".

(2.) THE case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. His father Ram Naresh Sharma was a State Government employee posted as Headmaster, Primary School, Bhuakaul in the district of Samastipur. Said Ram Naresh Sharma died in harness on 2.4.1978. Petitioner filed application for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher within time. The Director, Research, Training and Education of Government of Bihar by his letter no. 1315 dated 4.8.1978 selected the petitioner for Primary Teachers Training course. The petitioner was sent for training and was admitted against 3% reserved seats which were to be filled up from amongst heirs of deceased Government employee on compassionate ground. The petitioner thereafter carne out successful in the primary teachers training on 29.7.82 (1978 -80 Sessions). However, no order of compassionate appointment was provided to him. It appears that the name of the petitioner was empanelled in the year 1984 in a routine manner for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher Panel has been enclosed by the respondents as Annexure -B to the counter -affidavit. No preferance was given to the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Name of the petitioner being at Serial no. 79, in normal course he was not provided with appointment. After a number of reminders the case of the petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Committee which in their metting dated 20.4.92 (vide Annexure -A) has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of "delay".

(3.) WHILE the counsel for the petitioner relied on some of the decisions of Courts to show that the application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground of delay, counsel for the State relied on certain other decisions in his support.