High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 11 PAT CK 0042

Rahul Kumar Son of Late Rana Pratap Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Bihar and ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 27 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19553 of 2015

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 333 words

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment.

In the counter affidavit stand has been taken that the petitioner ought to have filed application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format

before the District Education Officer, Gaya instead of Jehanabad and as such the case of the petitioner could not be considered.

Since the father of the petitioner died in harness on 26.12.2011 and the application of the petitioner was filed within time, although it was not before

the District Education Officer, Gaya, it was the responsibility of the District Education Officer, Jehanabad to have returned the application to be

placed before the District Education Officer, Gaya. Technicality cannot be a ground to defeat the compassionate appointment which is devised as

social security measure.

Considering the objection of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the prescribed format

before the District Education Officer, Gaya along with a copy of this order, who shall be under obligation to place the case of the petitioner before the

District Compassionate Appointment Committee within a period of one month from the date of filing of such application and the District

Compassionate Appointment Committee and the District Establishment Committee are required to take appropriate decision in the matter of

compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a further period of two months.

It is made clear that the petitioner had approached the District Education Officer, Jehanabad well within time, therefore, the respondents cannot reject

the claim of the petitioner on the

ground of time barred particularly in view of the fact that the instant writ petition was filed on 21.12.2015 i.e. within the period of five years from the

date of death of father of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Â