Masihur Rehman v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8279 of 2015 ====================================================== Masihur Rehman, S/O Late Md. Sayeedur Rehman, Resident of VillageKajara Betauna, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnia. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Purnia.

4. The District Education Officer, Purnia.

5. The Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Patna through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Patna.

7. The Chairman, Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Patna.

8. The Secretary, Madrasa Faizul Ghoraba, Chimani Bazar, Purnia City, Purnia.

9. The Incharge, Head Maulvi, Madrasa Faizul Ghoraba, Chimani Bazar, Purnia City, Purnia.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal For the Madarsa :

Md. Rashid Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 27-11-2018 Petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate. The idea behind the compassionate appointment is to provide social security.

In the event of death of bread earner in harness, scheme has been formulated for compassionate appointment so that family may tide over from the financial crisis occasioned on account of untimely death of bread earner.

In the instant case, father of the petitioner was

Patna High Court CWJC No.8279 of 2015(2) dt.27-11-2018 2/2 working on the post of Head Maulvi of Madrasa Faizul Ghoraba, Chimani Bazar, Purnia. After death of his father, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is against the Managing Committee of the Madarsa for which remedy under Article 226 is not appropriate.

Considering the hardship and the idea behind the compassionate appointment, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach Madarsa in question.

The Court hope and trust that Madarsa will do needful and consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

Necessary decision in this regard may be taken at the earliest so that the idea behind the compassionate appointment cannot be frustrated.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U