Aparesh Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.
(2.) Petitioner seeks review of the judgment/order dated 5th February, 2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2595 of 2008 which reads as under: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's father died on 02.07.2005 while working as Teacher in the district of Chatra under the respondent-Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and according to him, his name was recommended for Grade-III post in the meeting of the compassionate committee held on 30.05.2006. However, he has been appointed on Grade-IV post in the Ganga Smarak High School Gidhaure Block Gidhaure, district-Chatra vide appointment letter dated 01.06.2007, Annexure-2. He claims to be duly qualified having degree of Master in Arts and as such, it is stated that in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents have discriminated with the petitioner as one Naveen Kant Sinha was also recommended and appointed in Grade-III post. Similarly one Anuradha Devi a Matric passed candidate was also appointed in Grade-III post pursuant to the decision of the compassionate committee held on 16.10.2004. According to the petitioner, five persons have been appointed in Grade-III post, who were having lesser qualification as stated in para-11 of the writ petition. Therefore, he has approached this Court in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Anil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012(1) JLJR 237. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the discriminatory approach of the respondents have been denounced and the respondents were directed to consider the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner on Class-III post. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It has been stated on their part that the petitioner was recommended for Grade-III post by the Compassionate Committee on 30.05.2006. However, letter no. 1078 dated 27.04.2005 was brought to the notice of the Committee, which was issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi. According to the said letter appointment on Grade-III post could not be made by the District Appointment Committee. The aforesaid error was amended in the subsequent meeting of the Committee held on 22.09.2006. In respect of the statement made in so far as Naveen Kant Sinha is concerned, he was recommended in Grade-III post due to inadvertence and typing mistake, which was corrected in the subsequent meeting of the Compassionate Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on 22.09.2006 as being in Grade-IV. In so far as appointment of Anuradha Devi is concerned, it has been stated that the same was done according to the letter no. 581 dated 25.02.2005 issued by the Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. The action of the respondents is, therefore, not arbitrary or discriminatory. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner having been appointed on Grade-IV on compassionate ground and accepted, however, cannot claim appointment on any particular post as a matter of right. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through relevant materials available on record. The issue relating to compassionate appointment has been considered and settled in several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the recent judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi reported in JT 2013(11) SC 408 , these principles have been once again reiterated. It has been held as under:- 10. Before we proceed to appreciate the entitlement of the respondent for a particular post on compassionate basis, we think it necessary to refer to certain pronouncements in the field pertaining to compassionate appointment itself. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [JT 1994(3) SC 525: 1994 (4) SCC 138] while dealing with the concept of compassionate appointment the Court has observed that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis then a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence, they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. 11. In Sail v. Madhusudan Das [JT 2008(12) SC 642: 2008 (15) SCC 560] this Court reiterating the principle has stated thus:- 15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of the sole bread winner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a decease employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. 12. In General Manager, State Bank of India and Others v. Anju Jain [JT 2008(9) SC 272 : 2008 (8) SCC 475] it has been clearly stated that appointment on compassionate ground is never considered to be a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per the settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates are be considered alike. The State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependants of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread winner. It is an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. 13. In Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami and Another [JT 2012(5) SC 492: 2012 (11) SCC 307] it has been observed that the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is based on the premise that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service, and, therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 14. In State Bank of India and Another v. Raj kumar [JT 2010(5) SC 492: 2010 (11) SCC 661] it has been ruled that the dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is, therefore, traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. The petitioner admittedly got appointment on Grade-IV post upon decision of the Compassionate Committee duly revised on the subsequent date on 22.09.2006 and accepted it. The earlier recommendation made vide minutes dated 30.05.2006 was rectified as there was no power under the compassionate committee to make appointment on compassionate ground for Grade-III post as there was error in the recommendation. The letter of the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 27.04.2005, was brought to the notice of the committee under which such appointment could not have been recommended by the District Appointment Committee. It is well settled law that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The same is being granted to meet exigency created because of the death of bread earner. It is to be done under the scheme which is framed by the employer in the respective organization in respect of such deceased employee. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to make out any case of discrimination in the decision making process in the meeting held by the compassionate committee in which the petitioner's case was recommended finally for Grade-IV post. The reference, which has been made in respect of other persons in relation to such exercise are of different transactions and the respondents have stated that the same were done by the direction of the Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 25.02.2005, Annexure-3 to the main writ petition. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (Supra) wherein the facts and circumstances were under the same recommendation, the respondents had chosen to appoint some persons on Class-III post while appointing the said appellant/writ petitioner on Class-IV post. In such circumstances, the approach of the respondents was held to be unreasonable and they were directed to implement the recommendation of the compassionate committee by giving appointment to the said appellant/writ petitioner in Grade-III post. In the instant case, the petitioner has, however, not been able to make any such case of discrimination in the same decision making exercise in which the petitioner was appointed on Grade-IV post. This writ petition, therefore, being devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(3.) Petitioner contended that review petition was preferred on discovery of certain facts and documents after passing of the impugned judgment. Petitioner contends that two persons whose names were also recommended for Class-IV Post in the meeting of District Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 22nd September, 2006, namely, Rajesh Bakhla and Bikas Kumar, have been appointed on Class-III Post by the respondents, later on, on same compassionate grounds as per order dated 21st May, 2007, Annexure 1 and minutes of District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra dated 29th May, 2009, Annexure 2 to the review petition.;