SONAPATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board.

(2.) THE two petitioners, who are mother and son and respectively the widow and the third and youngest son of the deceased employee of the Board, have approached this Court for issuing direction to the respondents to appoint on compassionate ground petitioner no. 2, Amit Kumar in place of second son, Ajay Kumar since petitioner no. 2 is I.Sc. and has also done computer course from a recognized institution. The relevant facts of the case are that Late Chandrika Prasad died -in -harness on 27.2.2000 while he was employed in the Bihar School Examination Board leaving behind his widow, petitioner no. 1 and three sons namely, Manoj Kumar, Ajay Kumar and petitioner no. 2, Amit Kumar. The second son, Ajay Kumar, had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8072 of 2001 with a prayer that the Board may be directed to grant him compassionate appointment. However, the Board in its counter affidavit took the stand that the eldest son has also applied for compassionate appointment and in the said circumstances, it was difficult for them to consider the case of such appointment of either of the sons. The writ application was accordingly disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.8.2001 with the direction that if the said Ajay Kumar files an application in prescribed performa, with affidavit of Mahesh Kumar that appointment be provided to the petitioner on compassionate ground, the respondent -Board shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and shall dispose it of without any delay.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , it appears from the record that the Board informed the said Ajay Kumar regarding its policy decision contained in Memo No. 1231 dated 24.5.2003 in terms of which only the widow or the eldest son of the deceased employee could be appointed on compassionate ground and only if it was found that the eldest son was mentally unfit then the case of the second son can be considered. It is also the stand of the petitioners that they had been informed by the Board by letter dated 19.6.2004 that apart from other requirements the certificate regarding knowledge of computer has also to be enclosed. Considering the said circumstances since the second son did not have a certificate of computer training, the petitioner no. 1 wrote to the Board on 16.7.2004 that her youngest son, Amit Kumar, has passed I.Sc. examination and computer course and he may be considered for the said post; regarding the factum of the eldest son, the same should not be applied to the case of the petitioners since he separated from the family members during the lifetime of his father and has no concern or care for the family members and hence, in this case the eldest son is not in a position to maintain and look after the dependents of the deceased and therefore the opportunity should be provided to the member of the family who is looking after and maintaining all the dependents of the deceased. The further stand of the petitioner is that subsequently the said eldest son, Mukesh Kumar, has been murdered on 8.1.2005 with respect to which death certificate has also been annexed and it is further stated that Kotwali P.S. Case No. 8 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. has been lodged, which fact has also been communicated to the respondent -Board.