Judgment:
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. The present dispute relates to the right to get compassionate appointment. The conflict is between 2 sons of the deceased who died in harness while serving in the Bihar School Examination Board. The wife of deceased employee though initially had sought compassionate appointment for her elder son but thereafter by affidavit and other representations and then personally met the authorities and canvassed for her younger son, who has been appointed on compassionate ground which appointment is challenged by the elder son. The facts are not in dispute.
2. Parties have appeared, filed their counter affidavit and rejoinder has been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage itself.
3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ application for the cause of the elder son, submits, placing reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kishore Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 276, that where there is a conflict between 2 sons, appointment shall be considered on seniority basis. On the other hand, on behalf of respondents No. 5 (younger son) and 6 (mother), reliance is placed on judgment in the case of Sonapati Devi and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 390 wherein the same very Court who decided the earlier case noticed above, in relation to a similar dispute, was of the view that compassionate appointment is for the purposes of supporting a family and not an individual and, therefore, this aspect has to be kept in mind.
4. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that petitioner, the elder son had, before the death of his father, who was the employee, separated. He was not supporting the family. This is the positive stand of the mother as well when she seeks appointment of respondent No. 5 who is ready to support the family and is with the mother. The Board has referred the Circular of the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 05th October, 1991 in relation to compassionate appointment which is Annexure-A to their counter affidavit. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Board that earlier the Circular had been specific in providing that the right of compassionate appointment would first accrue to the surviving spouse, then to the elder son, then to the unmarried daughter but since 1991, this has changed. Instead of elder son, it is now provided that it is son without any such qualification. He submits that this Circular of the State Government has been adopted by the Board for the purposes of giving compassionate appointment. He submits that before giving compassionate appointment to respondent No. 5, the younger son, all 3, that is the mother (respondent No. 6), the elder son (petitioner) and the younger son (respondent No. 5) together were called to the Office of the Board and were personally interviewed as well. The Board found that the younger son was with the mother and was ready to take the entire responsibility of the family whereas the elder son, who was married, had separated. It is considering this aspect of the matter that Board chose to give employment on compassionate grounds to respondent No. 5 which decision is neither legally incorrect nor arbitrary.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, in my view, the writ petition cannot succeed and must be dismissed. One must keep in mind that right of compassionate appointment is not an inherent right of the dependents of the employee dying in harness. Ordinarily, death of an employee would create a vacancy to be filled up in normal course but considering the social dimension, the effect of sudden death of an employee in harness and its adverse effect on the family of the employee, a provision has been made for compassionate appointment of a person from the family in order to tide over and support the family. The purpose is not to give employment to an individual per se but to give support to a family in hard times. Thus, keeping this object in mind and giving a purposive interpretation to the Circular, as referred to above, son as used therein, now in contradiction to elder son, used earlier, would mean a son who would undertake or has undertaken to support the family and meet the family obligations. He may be younger or the youngest. That makes little difference. The employment on compassionate ground being for the family and not for the individual, it is only appropriate that while interpreting the Circular, the purpose behind it that is the purposive interpretation has to be given. It is only when purposive interpretation is given then the cause of Circular is furthered otherwise the very purpose behind the Circular is defeated. Thus seen, there is neither any conflict between the 2 decisions rendered by the same Court in relation to similar situation aforesaid and both are consistent because it is well known that each case is an authority on the facts as emanating in those cases, however, general the language used therein may be. Applying the said law as noticed above to the facts of the present case, it would be seen that undisputedly petitioner is not with the family. An employment to him would be an employment to an individual in contradiction to the purpose which is support to the family. The mother has, by applications and personally as well to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Board, impressed that it is respondent No. 5 who has agreed to support the family and take up the obligations.
6. Thus seen, consistent with the object and the purpose of the Circular, it cannot be said that the actions of the Board was in any way contrary to law or arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. The decision to give compassionate appointment to respondent No. 5 can, thus, not be said to be invalid.
7. The writ petition, thus, has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.