Rupendra Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

J.N. Singh, J.—From Annexures-3 and 4 it appears that the petitioner had earlier raised his grievance before this Court in 1998 itself with regard to his appointment against Class-III post on compassionate grounds as other similarly situated had been appointed against Class-III post. The said grievance of the petitioner was not entertained by this Court and the writ application was dismissed which was affirmed in appeal also in view of his qualification and in view of the fact that the deceased father was a Class-IV employee. Now after almost 13 years, petitioner has again raising a plea that he should have been appointed on Class-III post on the ground that some other compassionate appointee, with same qualification or lesser, were appointed on Class-III posts. It is true that in matters of compassionate appointment also Article 14 applies. It means that the authorities are required to maintain uniformity and equality in consideration in this matter also as between the candidates. It is not open to them to make pick and choose and take arbitrary decisions by providing appointment to some candidate on Class-III posts whereas appointing others similarly situated on Class-IV posts. A uniform yardstick and consideration has to be applied by the authorities while considering the cases of applicants for compassionate appointment. If no rationale is discernible from the decision of the concerned authorities in selecting some candidates for appointment on Class-III posts and others for appointment on Class-IV posts, the decision may become arbitrary and mala fide.

However, since the petitioner had lost in this Court earlier and the matter is of 1998, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ application and the same is dismissed.