SURYABHUSHAN RAKESH Vs. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present dispute relates to the right to get compassionate appointment. The conflict is between 2 sons of the deceased who died in harness while serving in the Bihar School Examination Board. The wife of deceased employee though initially had sought compassionate appointment for her elder son but thereafter by affidavit and other representations and then personally met the authorities and canvassed for her younger son, who has been appointed on compassionate ground which appointment is challenged by the elder son. The facts are not in dispute.

(2.) PARTIES have appeared, filed their counter affidavit and rejoinder has been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage itself.

(3.) IN the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that petitioner, the elder son had, before the death of his father, who was the employee, separated. He was not supporting the family. This is the positive stand of the mother as well when she seeks appointment of respondent No. 5 who is ready to support the family and is with the mother. The Board has referred the Circular of the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 05th October, 1991 in relation to compassionate appointment which is Annexure -A to their counter affidavit. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Board that earlier the Circular had been specific in providing that the right of compassionate appointment would first accrue to the surviving spouse, then to the elder son, then to the unmarried daughter but since 1991, this has changed. Instead of elder son, it is now provided that it is son without any such qualification. He submits that this Circular of the State Government has been adopted by the Board for the purposes of giving compassionate appointment. He submits that before giving compassionate appointment to respondent No. 5, the younger son, all 3, that is the mother (respondent No. 6), the elder son (petitioner) and the younger son (respondent No. 5) together were called to the Office of the Board and were personally interviewed as well. The Board found that the younger son was with the mother and was ready to take the entire responsibility of the family whereas the elder son, who was married, had separated. It is considering this aspect of the matter that Board chose to give employment on compassionate grounds to respondent No. 5 which decision is neither legally incorrect nor arbitrary.