JUDGMENT
U.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner’s father died on 28th December, 1981, after serving for long seventeen years as Headmaster in she Primary School, Gopiya Toli, Purnia. He left behind his widow, three sons and two daughters. None of them is an earning member. On account of premature death of the petitioner’s father the economic condition of the family became critical, there being no other source of income. The petitioner, therefore, applied in the form prescribed by the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department on 18th March, 1983 to the District Superintendent of Education, Purnia (Respondent No. 6), for his appointment on the post of s teacher on compassionate ground (Anukarmpa) which was recommended by him and forwarded to the Directorate of Education Bihar, Patna. When the petitioner made that application, he was 17 years of age. The application so forwarded by respondent No. 6 to the Education Department was returned to respondent No. 6 in September, 1983, by the Deputy Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna, with an observation that, due to under-age, i.e., below 18 years, the petitioner could not be appointed on the basis of Anukampa (Annexure 3).
2. When the petitioner attained the age of 18 years, he, once again, sent his original application with all enclosures to the higher authorities for considering his case of such appointment. The same was forwarded in April, 1985, to the Deputy Director of Education again for considering the case of the petitioner. The Joint Secretary of the Education Department returned the same to the District Education Officer in view of the decision of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department stating that, the power of appointment on the basis of Anukampa was decentralised to District Level under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate of that district. Accordingly, the petitioner as also too District Magistrate were informed with a direction to place the case of the petitioner before the Committee heated by the District Magistrate as tae Chairman of the Committee. Thereafter, the District Development Officer-cum-Secretary of the Appointment Committee (Respondent No. 10) on the basis of Anukampa vide his letter dated 16th June, 1986, contained in Annexure 6, informed the petitioner that his application had been rejected on the sole ground that he did not file his application within the prescribed period of limitation of two years as determined by the personal and Administrative Reforms Department. The same has been challenged in this writ application. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application to the Officer Incharge, Public Complaint Cell, Purnia, in or about August, 1987, enumerating all the facts but no reply was received.
3. There are peculiar circumstances in this case. When the father of the petitioner died in harness, the petitioner had just passed his matriculation examination in the year 1981 in Second Division and because of the loss of his father he could not take up higher education. When he applied for his appointment on compassionate ground (Anukampa), he was under age, i.e., below 18 years, and, on that ground, his application was not considered by respondent No. 7.When the petitioner completed 18 years of age, he-applied once again for such appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected by respondent No. 10 by his order contained in Aunexure-6 on the ground that the petitioner did not apply within two years from the date of the death of his father which was the requirement as per the rule laid down by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. It may be noticed that, according to the circular issued by the said Department regarding appointment on the basis of Anukampa, whenever a controversy regarding relaxation of any rule is raised then it became necessary to obtain the approval from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. The said circular is contained in Annexure-9.
4. It would be relevant to notice that, generally, the criterial regarding the minimum age laid down by the Bihar Service Code will have to be followed, but, in the special circumstances, the age of a candidate may be relaxed. This is evident from the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 12th July, 1977, contained in Annexure-2 and paragraph 2 states that, as per Rule 54 of the Bihar Service Code, there can be relaxation in age. In a case where an appointee is averaged. his age may be relaxed under Rule 54 of the Bihar Service Code, but there is no rule as regards appointment of a candidate who is under age.
5. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has stated that, on attaining majority, he made a representation to the District Education Officer which was forwarded by him to the Deputy Director of Education (respondent No. 3) for proper action. It has been further stated that the period of limitation of two years, fixed earlier by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, for filing such application by a person dependent on the deceased employee for appointment on compassionate ground (Anukampa), has now been extended to five years vide notification No. 3/C-2030/88 Ka. 6817/Patna 15, dated 25th May, 19fc9 and the same has been annexed marked Aunexure-1 to the second supplementary affidavit.
6. It cannot be denied that the object behind the circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was to liberalise the process of appointment on compassionate grounds (Anukampa) so that the person concerned might be granted immediate benefit. Such persons are to be saved from the critical condition of life on account of economic backwardness and it is only with a view to save such person from starvation that the person concerned is given appointment on compassionate ground. Of course, the period of two years was fixed for presenting such an application and in this case within two years of the death of his father the petitioner did file such an application. But then, it was rejected because, on the date of presenting the application, he was under age being 17 years old and did not fulfil the prescribed age of 18 years. He became the victim of such circumstances. When he filed the application within two years of the death of his father, he was under age and when he presented the application fulfilling the condition of 18 years it was turned down on the ground that it was beyond the period of two years. The situation was beyond the control of the petitioner. But, one has to keep in mind the dominant object behind such circulars which were issued from time to time to facilitate and to benefit such persons in destitute and any technical approach would defeat the very object behind such appointments on compassionate grounds. Of course, such application must be made bonafide and within a period of two years, but, in a fit and proper case, relaxation in age has to be suitably considered and the age can be relaxed in order to achieve the very purpose of granting such benefit of service on compassionate ground.
7. Now, in view of the statement made in the supplementary affidavit, which has been controverted, it appears that the period of limitation of two years has been extended to five years for making such applications for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner after attaining the age of 18 years was forwarded by respondent No. 6 with his communication No. 278 dated 9th April, 1985, to the Deputy Director of Education, for consideration and after rejection of the application by the District Development Officer cum Secretary (respondent No. 10) the petitioner submitted another application to the Officer Incharge, Public Complaint Cell, Purnia, on 20th August, 1987, but no reply was received. Thus, in view of the recent notification dated 25th May, 1989, extending the period of two years to five years, the application of the petitioner which was pending on the date of notification deserves consideration and, therefore, the order contained in Annexure-6 is quashed and respondent No. 8, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa, is directed to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with law and on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. In the result, this application Is allowed with the directions indicated above, but there shall be no order as to costs.
S.B. Sanyal, J.
I agree. I would, however, like to add a few words.
9. The application for appointment by the petitioner whose father died in harness was first made on 18-3-1983, when he was aged seventeen years and few months. This was within two years of the death of his father, who died on 28-12-1988. The application was turned down because the petitioner did not attain the age of eighteen years, his date of birth being 10-2-1966. On 9-4-198S vide Annexure-4, much within five years of the death of his father, he filed another application, which, however, was rejected on 16-8-1986 on the ground that two years’ limitation from the date of death having expired, the application for employment was not entertainable. Against the decision of the employer he filed a representation for review which wag forwarded with a recommendation on 123-3-1987-vide Annexure-7 by the District Superintendent of Education to the District Development Officer for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. The said matter is still pending. This compelled the petitioner to file a complaint before the public complaint cell on 20-8-1987. The receipt of the complaint is Armexure-8. The petitioner thereafter filed this writ petition for failure of the respondents to dispose of the matter finally. In short, the matter with respect to his employment on compassionate ground remained pending before the authorities when on 25-5-1989 the State Government brought about the remedial amendment of the employment rule ( Annexure-I to the supplementary affidavit filed on 21-3-1990), which provides that an application for employment on con passionate ground could be made upto five years of the date of death. On 9-4-1985 when the petitioner filed the second application he was above eighteen years.
10. The petitioner’s representation against the decision of the authority did not attain finality, when the liberalised employment rule was enforced. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the liberalised employment rule on compassionate ground, his representation being pending on the date when the said rule was brought into effect. In the cage of B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmik , the Supreme Court held that the liberalised amendments have to be liberally construed so as not to deny its efficacy. Further, the amended rule in question is a beneficial rule to improve the condition and remove the miseries of the family of a parson who has died in harness. In that view of the matter, even if two opinions are possible, one which advances the object ought to be preferred (See All India Reporter Karmachari Sangh v. A.I.R. Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 1325 I see no reason, therefore, to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of 1989 rules, particularly because his representation and or review petition was pending on the date the rule was brought into force. The State Government in order to advance the object enlarged the period of limitation. Once that is given effect to, the petitioner becomes fully entitled to its benefit, since within five years of the death of his father he completed his education as also attained majority and his application for consideration of his case was also filed within five years, which remained pending on the date the liberalised rule came into force. In that view of the matter, the petitioner should be considered for employment on a suitable post within a period of two months from the receipt of this order.