- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, Awdhesh Ram on 17th January, 2005 while working as Jan Sevak at Manjhgaon Block stands denied by the impugned order at Annexure -3 bearing Memo no. 211 (,) pursuant to the decision taken by District Compassionate Appointment Committee, West Singhbhum. Petitioner admittedly is the son born out from the second wife of the deceased employee, namely, Trimani Kunwar. The grounds for rejection are: (i) that son born out from the second wife is not entitled to compassionate appointment; (ii) petitioner did not have minimum educational qualification of Matric in terms of Finance Department Resolution no. 1859 dated 2nd September, 2011 since he was only 9th pass.
(2.) Both grounds of rejection are being challenged on behalf of petitioner, inter alia, on the following submissions. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that the son born out from the second wife also stands on a similar footing, as the son of first wife as he is not considered to be an illegitimate child in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. If in the matter of inheritance no distinction is there between son born out from first and second wife, there is no reason why such distinction should be made in such matters of compassionate appointment. Reliance has been placed upon Division Bench judgment rendered by Patna High Court reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 769 in the case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. -vs - Ujjawal Kumar Ray. Counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid judgment at para 8 another judgment of Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Shri Kamal Ranjan, reported in (1994) 2 PLJR 536 has also been relied .
(3.) Learned senior counsel has also sought to explain the ratio rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad -vs. - Basanti Devi & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) J C R 111 (Jhr.). He submits that ground of rejection on that distinction is therefore unsustainable in law. He has also assailed the second ground of rejection by relying upon matriculation certificate enclosed as Annexure - 1 to the rejoinder which shows that petitioner was a matriculate on 10th May, 2008 as per marks - sheet issued by Jharkhand Academic Council where date of birth is also shown as 15th January, 1991.;