IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1224 of 2011 Smt.Sona Muni Devi, wife of late Jipal Turi, R.O.V Kuruwa, Post Office Kuruwa, P.S Dumka Muffasil, Dist-Dumka, Jharkhand Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Inspector General, G.R.P Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Inspector General, G.R.P. Muzaffarpur. 4. Superintendent of Police G.R.P Muzaffarpur. 5. The district Magistrate, muzaffarpur-cum- Chairman, Compassionate Appointment Committee, Muzaffarpur. 6. Deputy Collector, Establishment, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 2 03.05.2011 In this writ application petitioner has challenged the communication as contained in Annexure-11, by which the S.P railway has been informed that her application has been rejected on the ground of being time barred. The communication shows that the husband of petitioner had died on 04.09.2002 whereas she filed her application on 03.02.2009. Hence, the same was apparently filed beyond five years. This Court does not find any error in the said order rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground of being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied earlier also and within time, but her earlier application was rejected by Annexure-7 dated 2 20.12.2007 on the ground that she was having educational qualification of only 7th and there were some objections by the daughter of the first wife of the deceased constable. The letter contained as Annexure-7 was not earlier challenged by the petitioner in stead, she chose to enhance her qualification and apply afresh which took sometime and therefore, her application was filed beyond five years and which has been rejected by Annexure-11. Petitioner has filed I.A No. 1921 of 2011 in this case to amend the prayer and for liberty to her to challenge Annexure-7 also in this writ application. This Court finds that no useful purpose will be served by allowing the petitioner to challenge Annexure-7 also in this writ application, as the earlier application of petitioner was also rightly rejected on the ground that she was only 7th pass. It is not disputed that even for appointment on Class-IV posts minimum educational qualification required is 8th pass. Her application was also rejected in 3 the light of objection by daughter of first wife. A compassionate appointment is allowed only for the purpose of mitigating the hardship of the family on the ground of sudden death of the Government employee. Hence, for appointment on compassionate ground of any family member found eligible there must be a backing of the family and a legitimate expectation that he/she will look after the family. If there is a dispute in the family itself, a compassionate appointment will not serve the purpose. The I.A is accordingly rejected. This Court therefore, does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Prakash (J.N.Singh, J.)