Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed where the prescribed reservation calculation yields no available Class III vacancy.

The petitioner’s father, an employee of the Public Health Mechanical Division, Chapra, died in harness on 29 May 2015. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 21 September 2015.

The District Compassionate Committee recommended him for appointment to a Class-III post by Memo No. 741 dated 24 June 2017.

Despite the recommendation and the petitioner’s representations, the respondents issued Memo No. 46 dated 8 January 2019 appointing him to a Class-IV post, allegedly under threat of withdrawal of appointment if he did not join.

The petitioner relied on Government Letter No. 11462 dated 24 August 2016, contending that a candidate recommended for a particular post must be permitted to join that post.

He also relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act showing five vacancies in 2017 and four vacancies in 2018, contending that Class-III vacancies were available.

The State argued that, under the Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Clerical Cadre (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 2016, only 10% of the 85% direct-recruitment quota for Lower Division Clerks was reserved for compassionate appointment and that no such post was available.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment to a Class-III post on the basis of the District Compassionate Committee’s recommendation dated 24 June 2017, despite his eventual appointment and joining on a Class-IV post?

Whether Government Letter No. 11462 dated 24 August 2016 continued to govern the petitioner’s appointment after the notification of the 2016 Recruitment Rules?

Whether the vacancies relied upon by the petitioner created an available post for compassionate appointment under Rule 5(1) of the 2016 Rules?

Whether the precedents cited by the petitioner required grant of relief in the present case?

The Court applied Rule 5(1) of the Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Clerical Cadre (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 2016, under which 85% of Lower Division Clerk posts are filled by direct recruitment, 15% by eligible Group ‘D’ employees, and 10% of the direct-recruitment quota is reserved for compassionate appointment.

Rule 5(3) requires vacancies to be calculated as of 1 April each year, while Rule 5(2), (4) and (5) prescribe recruitment through the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and appointment after selection.

The Court further relied on Rule 18, which repealed earlier circulars and directions concerning the cadre; consequently, Letter No. 11462 dated 24 August 2016 could not be relied upon as a continuing source of entitlement.

The Court distinguished Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., and Chandan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., holding that those decisions arose in materially different circumstances.

The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the 24 August 2016 Government Letter was misplaced because the 2016 Rules had repealed earlier circulars and directions under Rule 18.

It then applied the quota prescribed by Rule 5(1): of the nine vacancies shown by the petitioner for 2017 and 2018, only 85% could constitute the direct-recruitment pool, and merely 10% of that pool was reserved for compassionate appointment. On the Court’s calculation, this did not yield even one available compassionate-appointment post.

Therefore, the existence of nine general vacancies did not establish the availability of a Class-III post for compassionate appointment.

The Court also found the cited precedents inapplicable: Chandan Kumar involved scrutiny of the Committee’s decision and relief under the 24 August 2016 notification; Rakesh Kumar directed reconsideration by the Committee; and Manoj Kumar concerned acceptance of a Class-IV appointment with an objection in circumstances where the present Rules were not determinative.

It held that Letter No. 11462 dated 24 August 2016 could not support the claim for Class-III appointment after the 2016 Rules came into force, and that the vacancies relied upon did not produce an available post within the compassionate-appointment quota.

The precedents cited by the petitioner were held distinguishable.

Accordingly, the writ petition seeking appointment to a Class-III post was dismissed.