Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Petitioners are aggrieved of rejection of their claim for appointment on Class-IH post; they have been appointed on Class-IV posts. They are seeking parity on the ground that similarly situated persons have been offered appointment on Class-III posts, whereas they who are also eligible for appointment on Class-III post have been appointed on Class-IV posts.
(2.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially claim of one Pramod Kumar for appointment on a Class-III post was rejected, but finally acceded and, therefore, the petitioners also must be treated alike and offered appointment on Class-III posts.
(3.) Briefly stated, claim of these petitioners for compassionate appointment was considered in the meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 27.12.2005 and a recommendation was forwarded for their appointment on Class-IV posts. Subsequently, one Nand Kishore Anand was recommended for appointment on Class-III post by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 208.2006. The petitioners namely, Nand Kishore Kumar and Upendra Kumar Mehta therefore came to this Court in W.P.(S) No.2323 of 2008 seeking a direction upon the respondents for their appointment on Class-III posts. This writ petition stood disposed of by order dated 10.01.2011 with a direction to the petitioners to submit their representations. Their representations have been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 19.02012. This is the order impugned by these two petitioners. taken a similar stand for their appointment on Class-III posts. Their representations have been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by orders dated 16.03.2016 and 31.03.2016, which have been challenged by them in the writ petitions. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Circular dated 05.10.1991 has been misconstrued by the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioners on Class-III posts. In a case, similar on facts, this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7519 of 2012 has held that a candidate possessing requisite qualification for appointment on Class-III post in the garb of Circular dated 05.10.1991 cannot be denied appointment on a suitable Class-III post. 6. In the first place, it is pertinent to record that the petitioners have been appointed on compassionate grounds. The object behind compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the crisis. Compassionate appointment, however, cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it is not a vested right in the dependant of the ex-employee. It is well-settled that an applicant cannot have a choice of post and he cannot insist appointment on a particular post. It is more than a decade since father of these petitioners have died in harness; their father died during 2003-04. 7. A plea of parity must be founded on facts. Claim of parity raised by the petitioners on the basis of appointment granted to one Vinay Kumar must fail, for the said Vinay Kumar was offered appointment on a Class-III post, however, on his failure to submit "Typing Certificate" he was given appointment on a Class-IV post. In these facts, the writ Court interfered with the decision of the respondent-authority to offer appointment to him on a Class-IV post. Whereas the petitioners have been recommended for appointment on Class-IV posts and their representations for appointment on Class-III post have been rejected. In case of Pramod Kumar, it needs to be indicated that at the time when claim of the said Pramod Kumar along with these petitioners was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 27.12.2005, the said Pramod Kumar was holding a qualification of Graduation whereas these petitioners were Intermediate. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for appointment on a Class-III post requisite educational qualification is Intermediate and not Graduation, would not cut ice. In order dated 06.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.7519 of 2012 (Pramod Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand and others) the learned writ Court has taken note of higher qualification of the said Pramod Kumar and this appears to be the plea raised by him for his appointment on Class-III post. It is recorded in the said order thus: "The petitioner on his case being not considered for class III post, as he was having higher qualifications, had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.821 of 2006, whereby the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Koderma was directed to consider the representation and take appropriate decision..." 8. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on facts, are distinguishable. 9. There is another aspect of the matter. Appointment on compassionate grounds is made in the light of the recommendation from the concerned office and the vacancy position. A candidate claiming appointment on a higher post, that is, Class-III post must establish that inspite of recommendation for appointment on a Class-III post and existing vacancy in Class-III he has been arbitrarily declined appointment on Class-III post and offered a Class-IV post. These petitioners have miserably failed to plead and prove that at the time when their claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, there was a favourable recommendation in their favour for appointment on Class-III post and vacancy for appointment on Class-III posts existed. 10. In the above facts, finding no merit in the challenge to the impugned orders dated 19.03.2012 [in W.P.(S) Nos. 2430 of 2016 and 2489 of 2016], dated 16.03.2016 [in W.P. (S) No. 2660 of 2016] and dated 31.03.2016 [in W.P.(S) No. 2895 of 2016], these writ petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed. ;