Employment of a sibling does not automatically bar compassionate appointment without assessing financial support to the family.

The petitioner’s father, a regular Accountant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Supaul, died in harness on January 23, 2021.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on April 27, 2021, and received a recommendation from the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for a Group-C post.

However, the Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar, rejected the application via letter dated May 10, 2023, on the sole ground that the petitioner’s brother was already employed as a Niyojit Teacher.

The petitioner challenged this rejection through the present writ petition and an interlocutory application seeking to quash the DGP's order.

1. Whether the application for compassionate appointment can be rejected solely on the ground that a sibling is employed, without conducting an inquiry into the financial status of the family.

2. Whether the respondent-authorities failed to follow the legal principles established by the Full Bench regarding the dependency of family members.

The court primarily applied the legal principles established by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Niraj Kumar Mallick and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2018 (2) PLJR 951).

The rule dictates that the mere employment of a sibling does not automatically disqualify an applicant; authorities must objectively assess whether the employed sibling is actually providing sustenance to the deceased employee’s dependents.

It also referenced the interpretation of this rule in C.W.J.C. No. 14290 of 2019.

The court found that the DGP rejected the claim perfunctorily based on the brother's employment status as a Niyojit Teacher without performing the mandatory inquiry required by the Niraj Kumar Mallick precedent.

The court observed that the authorities neglected paragraph 48 of the aforementioned Full Bench judgment, which requires the competent authority to objectively evaluate the nature of the sibling's employment and the resources generated therefrom to determine if the family is truly in distress.

Since no such inquiry was conducted to see if the brother was supporting the petitioner and other dependents, the rejection was deemed contrary to law.

The matter was remitted back to the Director General of Police, Bihar, with a direction to conduct a fresh inquiry in light of paragraph 48 of the Niraj Kumar Mallick judgment.

The court ordered that this exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of the order.