Patna High Court
Mukesh KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the Appointment Committee's order rejecting the compassionate appointment was lawful and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, applied for a compassionate appointment as a Peon in the Nawada Judgeship after his father's death, submitting an affidavit from his brother stating no objection. The Appointment Committee rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner's younger brother was already employed as an Inspector in the Indo‑Tibetan Border Police, deeming the family to have a breadwinner. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that a later affidavit in a succession case showed the brothers lived separately, and sought a quashing of the order. The court examined the affidavits and noted that the brother's earlier affidavit, filed with the original application, indicated a joint family, rendering the later affidavit irrelevant. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that compassionate appointments aim to alleviate family crisis rather than provide employment, the court found no illegality in the committee's decision and dismissed the writ.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of a compassionate appointment on the basis that another family member is employed in a Union Government post is legally valid.
- Whether a later affidavit disputing the joint family status can overturn the earlier decision of the Appointment Committee.
- Whether the principles laid down in Supreme Court judgments on compassionate appointments apply to the present case.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- joint family
- employment eligibility
- appointment committee
- writ jurisdiction
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4135 of 2017
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar, Son of Radha Raman Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Shivnagar,
Post- Mortem Road, P.S.- Nawadah, District- Nawadah.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Civil Court, Nawadah through its Registrar.
3. The Appointment Committee of the Judgeship of Nawadah through its
Chairperson.
4. The District and Sessions Judge, Nawadah.
5. The In-Charge Judge, Nawadah.
6. Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Radha Raman Singh, presently posted as
Inspector, General Duty, F Company, 10th Battalion, Indo Tibetan Border
Police, P.O.- Kimin, District- Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Nadeem Siraj, GP-5
Ms. Shalini, AC to GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant application has been filed by the
petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 12.7.2016
passed by the Appointment Committee of the Judgeship of
Nawada, whereby the application of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground in place of his
Patna High Court CWJC No.4135 of 2017 dt.05-02-2026
2/6
deceased father was rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father who
was working as Peon in the Nawada Judgeship died in harness
on 28.11.2014.
4. The petitioner being unemployed and duly
qualified having passed the B.Sc. Part-II examination applied
for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format by
filing an application in the Judgeship of Nawada on
15.12.2014. Along with his application for appointment on the
post of Peon, the petitioner filed an affidavit duly sworn by his
younger brother, the respondent no.6 herein which was to the
effect that he had no objection in case the petitioner was
appointed on compassionate ground in place of their father.
5. The application of the petitioner came to be
considered by the Appointment Committee which rejected the
same by its order dated 12.7.2016, impugned herein.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent Appointment Committee erred
in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment of
the petitioner on the ground of the younger brother of the
petitioner being employed on the post of Inspector in the
Indo-Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P). Learned counsel refers
Patna High Court CWJC No.4135 of 2017 dt.05-02-2026
3/6
to the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.6 in
Succession Case no.1 of 2022 filed by the petitioner in the
learned Court below to submit that the respondent no.6 has
categorically stated therein that he and the petitioner separated
in the lifetime of their father itself and have been living and
carrying on with their life having no connection with each
other. It is thus submitted that the order impugned be set aside
and the respondent be directed to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate ground.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. It is submitted that
from bare perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner along
with his application for compassionate ground and a copy of
which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ
application, it would transpire that the family of the petitioner
and the respondent no.6 is joint and have been living together.
It is thus submitted that the application of the petitioner
having been rejected on the ground of his younger brother
being employed as an Inspector in the I.T.B.P under the Union
Government, the reason given therein is sound, there is no
illegality in the order impugned and thus the application be
dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4135 of 2017 dt.05-02-2026
4/6
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
9. The relevant facts in brief are that the father of
the petitioner who was working as a Peon in the Nawada
Judgeship having died in harness on 28.11.2014, the petitioner
applied for appointment on the post of Peon (Class-IV) on
compassionate ground on 15.12.2014. The same came to be
rejected by order dated 12.7.2016 of the Appointment
Committee of the Judgeship of Nawada, which has been
challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ application.
10. The reason given by the Appointment
Committee for rejecting the petitioner’s application is that the
younger brother of the petitioner is already in the service of
the Union Government on the post of Inspector in the I.T.B.P.
As such on the death of their father, there is already a bread
earner in the family.
11. It may further be observed here that the
petitioner filed an affidavit sworn by his brother while filing
his application for compassionate appointment. A perusal of
the affidavit (Annexure P/2) would show that it has been
categorically stated therein that their mother died on 7.3.2013
and their sister has been married. It further states that both the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4135 of 2017 dt.05-02-2026
5/6
brothers i.e., the respondent no.6 and the petitioner are
married and are living as a joint family.
12. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner
refers to the affidavit filed by respondent no.6 in Succession
Case no.1 of 2022 in the Court of learned Sub Judge-I,
Nawada, to contend that the respondent no.6 and his brother
i.e., the petitioner are separate in mess and residence.
13. It may be observed here that the affidavit
(Annexure-P/2) of the respondent no.6 stating that the
brothers were joint was filed along with the application of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment in the year 2016 and
thereafter considering the facts and circumstances, the
application for compassionate appointment came to be
rejected by the order impugned dated 12.7.2016. So far as the
affidavit filed by the respondent no.6 in Succession Case no.1
of 2022 is concerned, the same is dated 19.10.2023, has been
sworn more than 7 years after the order impugned was passed
and is nothing but an after thought.
14. At this stage, it would be relevant to observe
that in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of
Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that the whole object of granting compassionate
Patna High Court CWJC No.4135 of 2017 dt.05-02-2026
6/6
appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis and is not to provide employment. Reference may also
be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Bank & Ors. vs. Promila & Anr., (2020) 2
SCC 729.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Court finds no illegality nor any error in the order
impugned, no merit in the instant writ application and the
same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…