2025:JHHC:10280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.C (S.B) No.12 of 2019 ---- Md. Zakaria Hossain, age about 36 years, son of Late Md. Manjarul @ Hajrul Haque, resident of Village-Sankarghat, P.O-Dogachhi, P.S Samsherganj, District- Murshidabad, West Bengal at present residing at Bari Ali Ganj (Ward No.2) P.O- Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District-Pakur, Jharkhand …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. District Education Officer, Pakur, P.O & P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur 3. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O & P.S- Pakur, District-Pakur 4. Madrasa Darul Uloom, Pakur through its Secretary Md. Musakalim, son of Saifuddin, resident of Village-Sankarghat, P.O. Bhawanipur, P.S Pakur(M), District-Pakur 5. Head Moulavi, Madrasa Darul Uloom, resident of village-Sankarghat, P.O. Bhawanipur, P.S Pakur(M), District-Pakur 6. Madrasa Board, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi 7. Jharkhand Academic Council through its Chairman, Office at Namkom, P.O & P.S-Namkom, District-Ranchi …. …. Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mrs.Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Kazi Asif Iqbal, Advocate ---- 11/Dated: 27th March, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2019, passed in Case No.46 of 2017 (JET) by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby, the case of the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The factual matrix of the case are as under:- (i) Father of the present appellant namely, Md. Manjarul Haque has joined as Assistant Teacher on 02.01.1978 under the respondent-Madarsa. (ii) On 08.11.2014, father of the appellant has died in harness. 2025:JHHC:10280 Page | 2 A.C. (S.B.) No.12 of 2019 (iii) An application has been made by the appellant for compassionate appointment which has been rejected by the respondent-Madarsa, vide letter dated 18.01.2016. (iv) On 11.08.2016, the appellant had filed a fresh representation giving example that one person Ayesha Khatoon has been granted compassionate appointment in the same Madarsa in place of her deceased husband. (v) For ventilating his grievance, the appellant has filed Case No.38 of 2016 (JET) before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi which has been disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2017, giving direction to the respondent-Madarsa to consider the claim of the appellant. (vi) The appellant has filed Execution Case No.03 of 2017 before the Tribunal for executing the order dated 17.05.2017. The Compliance Report has been filed stating that the claim of the appellant has been rejected. (vii) The said rejection order has been challenged by filing fresh case which has been numbered as Case No.46 of 2017 (JET) before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi. The said petition has already been dismissed, vide order dated 14.10.2019, which has been impugned in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the circular dated 05th October, 1991 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reform, State of Bihar, wherein, it has been stipulated that the compassionate appointment can be granted to the Class-III & IV employees. Paragraph No.11 of the said circular reads as under:- 5. Referring to the above circular, learned counsel has submitted that the present Madarsa is a Government aided institution and the circular is very much effective. Further, it has been submitted that since his claim has not been considered rather, it has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for compassionate appointment in the Madrasa and as such the order contained in letter dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Madrasa as well as the impugned order are wholly without jurisdiction as the Authority as well as the Tribunal have not considered the effect of the above circular. 2025:JHHC:10280 Page | 3 A.C. (S.B.) No.12 of 2019 6. On the strength of the above arguments, it has been submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said circular is no more applicable after creation of State of Jharkhand. Further, it has been submitted that even the said circular is not applicable, so far as the Madarsa is concerned because it is a minority institution having its own governing body and his compassionate appointment cannot be controlled by the State Government. Further, it has been submitted that the said issue has come for consideration before this Court. Vide order dated 24.07.2017, passed in W.P(S) No.2883 of 2016, it has been held by this Court that there is no such provision for compassionate appointment in Madrasa and as such, no direction can be issued. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that save and except circular, nothing has been brought to my notice to suggest that there is an existing rule for regulating the compassionate appointment in Madarsa. 9. It is settled law that in minority institution, the Government interference is protected by Constitution of India. Further, there has to be a specific rules for compassionate appointment applicable in Madarsa. In the present case, no such existing rule or applicable rule, have been brought on my notice save and except the above noted circular. The language of the above quoted circular is quite clear that it does not cover the minority institutions like Madarsa. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded