Binay Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and others

Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been appointed on compassionate ground on Class-IV post in the year 1999 whereas similarly situated persons who had been recommended by the District Compassionate Committee namely, respondent Nos. 6 to 8, on the same day, have subsequently been allowed by the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee appointment on compassionate ground on Class-III post and they have also joined on the said post. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are not giving the same benefit to the petitioner, despite his several representations in this regard.

So far as the question of compassionate appointment is concerned, it is not a matter of status, rather it is upto the State authorities to offer a post, whether Class-III or Class-IV, and it is for the applicant thereafter to accept or not to accept the same. The compassionate appointment is only given to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis and not to satisfy the desire to get the post commensurate with ones perceived status. The appointment not being on the basis of any equality of treatment vis-a-vis other candidates as required by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but only on account of compassion, once the compassionate appointment is accepted, then the matter comes to an end. Any further consideration of the candidate concerned for a further compassionate appointment is illegal and wrong. It is evident that the authorities have acted wrongly in the case of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 by reconsidering their cases for compassionate appointment, particularly respondent Nos. 7 and 8 who after being offered compassionate appointment on Class-IV post have also joined on the said posts, yet their cases were reconsidered subsequently after nearly three years and they were recommended for appointment on Class-III posts and have also joined on the said posts. However, the said appointments were made in the year 1999, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of more than seven years and thus this Court is not inclined to pass any order so far as the wrong committed in the case of compassionate appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is concerned.

The question of equal treatment under the law can only be applicable where a person has the right to be considered on the said post on the basis of prevailing law and procedure. It is evident that the petitioner has no right to be considered for appointment on Class-III post, once he accepted the appointment on Class-IV post and therefore no such direction can be given in his favour merely because of illegality committed in the cases of respondent Nos. 7 and 8. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurusharan Singh and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others. (1996) 2 SCC 459, the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be used to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order by extending similar benefits to others.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any direction in his favour by this Court. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.