In a decision that underscores the rigid limits on compassionate appointments within Bihar's judiciary, the Patna High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Ajay Kumar, son of a deceased Class-IV employee, who had sought appointment on humanitarian grounds. Justice Partha Sarthy, delivering the oral judgment on October 30, 2025, held that the petitioner’s case could not be entertained since the permissible quota for compassionate appointments in Munger Judgeship had already been exceeded.
Background
Ajay Kumar's father, a Class-IV employee under the Munger Judgeship, passed away while in service on June 5, 2016. Following his father's demise, Kumar applied for a job on compassionate grounds on September 27, 2016, submitting all required documents, including affidavits from his family members.
However, his application was rejected by the Appointment Committee of the Munger Judgeship during a meeting held on June 11, 2018. Aggrieved by the decision, Kumar moved the High Court seeking to quash the rejection and to direct the authorities to provide him a Class-IV post “on humanitarian grounds”.
Petitioner's Argument
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court’s administrative decision dated January 4, 2016-restricting compassionate appointments to 3% of the sanctioned posts-was applied wrongly and retrospectively.
"The decision limiting appointments came into effect before my client’s father passed away, but should not have been used to deny him his rightful claim," the counsel contended.
He relied on a 2023 Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 127 of 2022, which suggested that such restrictions must be applied fairly and in line with the State’s prevailing 5% policy.
Respondent's Stand
The High Court administration, represented through its counsel, opposed the petition, asserting that the Munger Judgeship’s decision complied strictly with the administrative directive.
"The appointment committee acted well within the parameters of the 3% policy, which was later revised to 5%. Even then, the quota was already filled," the respondents submitted.
A report by the Nazir of the Civil Court, Munger, confirmed that out of 170 sanctioned Class-IV posts, 20 were already occupied by compassionate appointees well above the 5% ceiling (which translates to roughly 9 posts).
Court's Observations
Justice Sarthy examined the records and noted that the petitioner’s father had indeed died after the 2016 notification was issued. Hence, the restriction could not be said to have been applied retrospectively.
"The father of the petitioner having died on 5.6.2016 subsequent to the said decision having been taken and communicated on 4.1.2016, the same has been applied in a prospective manner," the judge observed.
The bench also clarified that the earlier ruling cited by the petitioner (L.P.A. No. 127 of 2022) dealt with a different factual matrix and could not assist him. That case involved consideration under the new Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2022, which introduced a 5% cap on compassionate appointments.
In Ajay Kumar's case, even applying the 5% limit, the existing compassionate appointees already exceeded the permissible number.
Decision
After reviewing the facts, the Court found “no merit” in the petition. Justice Sarthy concluded that no further compassionate appointment could be made when the quota was already surpassed.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
With this ruling, the Patna High Court reaffirmed the principle that compassionate appointments meant as an exception and not a right-must remain within the strict limits set by administrative policy.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar vs The High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors.
Case Number: CWJC No. 16849 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2025
Advocates Appeared:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
