Some of the Appellants who were recommended for appointment to Class III posts but were appointed as Prakhand Teachers Panchayat Shikshaks Nagar Shikshaks, etc.
That order was neither rescinded number modified by the companypetent authority on the premise that after companying into force of the 2006 Rules, the appellant companyld have been appointed only by the Panchayat Samiti on the post of Prakhand Teacher.
Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was number at all justified in recording a finding that the appellant companyld have been appointed only as a Prakhand Teacher by the Panchayat Samiti on fixed pay.
By the aforementioned judgment, the Appeal filed by Vishwanath Pandey was allowed by this Court holding thus We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and scrutinised the records.
Compassionate appointments are number a source of recruitment and they are made to provide succour to the family of an employee who dies in harness.
The Appeals filed by the Government challenging the said judgment in the writ applications were allowed.
Unfortunately, the Division Bench overlooked the fact that the appellant had been appointed as per the policy of companypassionate appointment framed by the State Government and that policy does number envisage the appointment of the dependant of a deceased employee on fixed pay.
Vishwanath Pandey who was similarly situated to the Appellants succeeded in the Writ Petition filed by him for appointment on a regular pay scale.
The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 are number entitled to the relief granted to those who were recommended for appointment to Class III or Class IV posts prior to that date.
It is also number in dispute that after lifting of the ban, the District Compassionate Committee recommended the appellants appointment as teacher on companypassionate ground and he was appointed against the vacant post by the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar.
By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court companyrectly held that the Appellants have numberlegal right to seek appointment on companypassionate grounds.
The companypetent authority recommended the appointment of some of the Appellants in Class III posts.
In the State of Bihar companypassionate appointments are governed by instructions issued by the Government.
on a fixed pay.
The Appellants who have challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in these Appeals submitted that they are companyered by a judgment of this Court in Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2013 10 SCC 545.
They applied for appointment to Class III Government posts on the basis of instructions governing companypassionate appointments.
The Appellants companyld number have been appointed on a fixed pay and they are entitled for appointment to either on Class III or Class IV posts on regular basis or payment of regular pay scale in the posts of as Prakhand Teachers Panchayat Shikshaks Nagar Shikshaks, etc.
Some of the Appellants were recommended for appointment to Class III posts on a regular basis by the District Compassionate Committee.
However, they were appointed on fixed pay as Prakhand Teachers Panchayat Shikshaks Nagar Shikshaks, etc.
However, they were appointed as Prakhand Teachers Panchayat Shikshaks Nagar Shikshaks, etc.
It is number in dispute that even though the District Compassionate Committee had made recommendations on 29 11 2005 that the appellant may be appointed on a Class III post, he was number given appointment because of the ban imposed by the State Government.
However, the said judgment was reversed by a Division Bench.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
in which they are working at present.
The Appellants are children of Government employees who died in harness.
on fixed pay are similarly situated to Vishwanath Pandey and they are entitled to be appointed on a regular pay scale.
