Compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on grounds of delay where the application was timely filed.

The petitioner’s father, a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Motihari, died in harness on September 18, 2008

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on August 9, 2009

Despite a previous High Court direction in 2014 (CWJC no. 8841 of 2014) to decide the matter

and subsequent contempt proceedings [para. 6], the District Compassionate Committee rejected the application on December 9, 2021

The rejection was based on the grounds that the application was filed on February 27, 2021, exceeding the five-year limitation period from the date of death

An intervenor also appeared, claiming to be the deceased's second wife

1. Whether the District Compassionate Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner's application on the grounds of limitation by misidentifying the filing date

2. Whether the claims of a biological son and a purported second wife can be considered concurrently for compassionate appointment

The Court's decision was governed by the circulars of the General Administration Department, Bihar, specifically Letter No. 11959 dated August 30, 2019, and Letter No. 2822 dated April 27, 1995, which prescribe a five-year limitation period for filing compassionate appointment applications

the court applied the principle of judicial finality regarding its previous order in CWJC no. 8841 of 2014, which recognized the pendency of the petitioner's claim prior to the alleged 2021 filing date

The Court found the Committee’s finding—that the application was filed in 2021—to be factually incorrect. The record demonstrated that the petitioner had applied as early as 2009, shortly after his father's death, and had obtained a favorable court direction in 2014

The Court observed that the 2021 date cited by the respondents was likely a reference to a subsequent appearance or document submission, rather than the original application date

Since the initial application was within the five-year window, the ground of delay was untenable

Regarding the intervenor (second wife), the Court held that while her claims were not yet adjudicated, they deserved consideration alongside the petitioner’s claim to determine the most eligible candidate on merits

The Respondent-District Compassionate Committee was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case on merits within three months. Furthermore, the Court granted the intervenor liberty to approach the authorities, directing that her claim be considered alongside the petitioner’s. The writ application was disposed of accordingly