VIKASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the District Compassionate Committee taken at its meeting held on 22.8.2005 (Annexure -1) by which his application for appointment on compassionate ground has again been rejected. The father of the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Mirjapur, Navinagar (Aurangabad) and while so posted died on 8.9.1995 leaving behind the petitioner, the eldest son, and other heirs. The petitioner was admittedly a minor on the said date having been born on 13.3.1982. Subsequently, he filed an application on 22.12.1999 in the prescribed form before the Headmaster, Government Middle School, Mirjapur who forwarded the same to the Range Education Officer, Kutumba who further recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in his letter dated 8.4.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he again filed another application in prescribed proforma on 20.6.2000 after attaining majority on 13.3.2000 and before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of death of his father on 8.9.1995. Thereafter while the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment remained pending, he passed his matriculation examination in the year 2001 and intermediate examination in 2003. Finding that no action was being taken upon his earlier application, the petitioner again filed an application in the prescribed manner on 3.7.2003 before the Headmaster of the school with all the further information. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the query of the respondent authorities he supplied whatever other documents regarding his qualification and genealogy, residence certificate, etc. in the year 2003 as was required and also enclosed all the relevant documents in his further representation dated 25.9.2003. The matter was ultimately recommended before the District Compassionate Committee which in its meeting dated 29.12.2003 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it was time barred.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 2514/2004 stating all the aforesaid facts and this Court by its order dated 21.5.2005 disposing of the writ application held that while the first application of the petitioner filed on 22.12.1999 and the subsequent application of the year 2003 were both incompetent, the first on the ground of the petitioner being a minor and therefore not yet qualified to apply and the second having been filed after expiry of five years but the one and the only competent application was dated 20.6.2000 which was not decided in accordance with law and the District Compassionate Committee was directed to consider and decide the said application on its merit in accordance with law. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 22.8.2005 the District Compassionate. Committee has again rejected the case of the petitioner. The Committee at its meeting noted the fact that the petitioner in his application dated 25.9.2003 had mentioned the fact of his earlier application dated 22.12.1999 having been forwarded by the Range Education Officer by his letter dated 8.4.2000 and did not make any reference to his subsequent alleged application dated 20.6.2000. Further, it noted that the Range Education Officer, Kutumba also in his letter dated 22.8.2003 referred to the application dated 6.4.2000 but has not mentioned at all the receipt of the application dated 20.6.2000 in his office. It also noted that the petitioner in his application dated 13.12.2003 to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad had referred to his application dated 22.12.1999 and has not mentioned the subsequent application dated 20.6.2000 as having been submitted in the office of the Range Education Officer. The District Compassionate Committee therefore, came to the conclusion that after the application dated 3.7.2003 of the petitioner was held to be time barred by the Committee, the petitioner had created the subsequent fabricated application of 20.6.2000 with a back date after taking into collusion the Range Education Officer, Kutumba and the Headmaster of the School and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner and also decided that the concerned Range Education Officer, Kutumba and the Headmaster of the School should be proceeded against departmentally. It is however, submitted by learned counsel for the State on the basis of the instructions that ho such departmental proceeding could be initiated since the concerned Headmaster had retired on 31.3.2001 and the Range Education Officer had retired on 31.5.2002.