2025:JHHC:24151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 3523 of 2025 ----- Vikas Kumar, aged about 48 years, Son of Jainandan Prasad, Resident of Old Court, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District - Chatra, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, Administrative Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Jharkhand. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, 4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC-1 …...... 04/ 12.08.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For quashing of the order contained in memo no. 267 dated 15.02.2025, whereby and whereunder the claim for consideration of the case of the petitioner to reconsider his case for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been rejected on non-existent ground and in an arbitrary manner in the teeth of Judgment/Order dated 07.03.2024 passed in LPA No. 68 of 2020. ii. Further, upon quashing of the order contained in memo no. 267 dated 15.02.2025, for a direction upon respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Assistant as similar situated persons have been appointed on the said post and not considering the appointment of the petitioner on the said post is apparent discrimination. 2. The petitioner was given compassionate appointment after the death of his mother, who was an Assistant Teacher. Although he was qualified holding a B.Com degree and applied for the post of Assistant Teacher, he was initially recommended for a Grade-IV post in 2006 and later for a 2025:JHHC:24151 Grade-III Clerk post in 2009. He is aggrieved, as he was not considered for appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher despite being eligible and more qualified than others who were appointed as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3836/2011 which was dismissed by the court. After that the petitioner filed L.P.A. No. 68 of 2020, which was allowed but instead of reconsidering his claim as directed, the authorities again rejected his request based on the reasoning that he had already been appointed as a Clerk (Grade-III) by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting on 29.05.2009 and is currently working in that post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible for consideration of his claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher as other similarly situated persons have been given compassionate appointment on post of Assistant Teacher. He further submits that the petitioner possess all required criteria for getting appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher as he has also completed his Teachers Training. He further submits that the authorities rejected the petitioner’s claim based on a Letter no. 10167 dated 01.12.2015. However, they ignored the fact that the petitioner’s case is of 2006, so the 2015 letter cannot be applied to his case as it was issued much later and the same cannot be given retrospective effect. 4. The learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner was appointed on a Grade III post as a Clerk. He joined the said post and therefore he cannot be permitted to agitate his grievance at this stage. He further submits that since the petitioner is already working in that post since long, and his grievance has been addressed twice, there is no valid reason to raise the issue again. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner has already been appointed in a Class-III post on compassionate ground. He accepted and joined and is currently working in 2025:JHHC:24151 that position. He was appointed in 2009. Be it noted that earlier on compassionate ground, he was appointed in Class-IV post, but the employer later changed it to a Class-III post. It is well-established that a person cannot demand compassionate appointment to a particular post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shashank Goswami reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307 has observed in paragraph 10 that- 10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, the applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact and judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.