IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9826 of 2006 ANIL MANDAL, S/O LATE RAM MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE-BHIKHANPURA, GUMTI NO. 1, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION: ISHAQKCHAK, DISTRICT:BHAGALPUR. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, KIUL BADUA CHANDAN COMMAN AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, BHAGALPUR. 3.THE SECRETARY, KIUL BADUA CHANDAN COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, BHAGALPUR. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 29.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The limited prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 28.09.2004, rejecting the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment and consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on a class-IV post. Mr Kabir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not passed Class-VIII examination till the date of passing of the impugned order dated 28.09.2004, but if the authorities had disposed of his application for compassionate appointment filed by him on 22.09.1999, at an earlier date, the petitioner 2 could have improved his qualification and therefore would have been reconsidered for appointment on compassionate ground. Attractive though aforementioned submission may be but when it is analysed in the facts of this case it becomes clear that such an argument is in fact an argument of desperation. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.02.1973, and therefore, when he had allegedly filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground i.e. on 22.09.1999, he could not have been appointed because he was a minor. If the authorities, therefore, had considered his case only after becoming his major, which he became on or after 05.02.2001, the petitioner was not prejudiced in any manner. The petitioner, in order to be eligible for appointment on class-IV post was required to pass class-VIII examination, and that he did not do so even in the next five years from the date of death of his father. The circular of compassionate appointment of the State Government is very clear that only eligible persons holding the requisite qualification can be appointed against the particular post and as 3 the petitioner was not holding the requisite qualification even for the post of peon, the rejection of his case by the impugned order cannot be said to be contrary to the Government policy. The claim of compassionate appointment and the limited right therein, for consideration can easily be lost either on account of non-fulfilment of the essential qualification or restrictions imposed in the policy. As this Court has found that the petitioner was not qualified and he had not even passed class-VIII examination up to the date of the passing of the impugned order dated 28.09.2004, it has to be necessarily held that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground against the lowest post of peon. That being so, this Court must hold that this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)