WP(C) 5431/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. R. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, as transpires from the pleadings of the parties and the material s on record, was appointed, on 17.10.2009, on a consolidated pay of Rs.5000/- pe r month, under a given scheme. In fact, the petitioner was not the lone appointe e inasmuch as there were as many as 85 persons, who were appointed to implement the scheme aforementioned. The appointment, dated 17.10.2009, aforementioned, wh ich was for a period of four months, with effect from 3.11.2009, does not, there fore, vest in the petitioner any indefeasible right to be continued in service o n the basis of the said appointment order, dated 17.10.2009, nor does it confer on the petitioner any right to get regular appointment. In fact, at the time of receiving appointment on 17.10.2009, the petitioner knew the nature of his appoi ntment and the fact that his appointment would stand terminated, on 3.3.2010, by efflux of time. As far as the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground is conc erned, suffice it to point out that the petitioner’s father died on 04.09.1996 a nd the petitioner claims to have applied for compassionate appointment in the ye ar 2007. It is not exactly clear from the pleadings of the petitioner as to what his date of birth was and when did he attain majority. This apart, the petition er has also not been able to prove on record that he had made any application fo r appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the relevant policy of the Gov ernment. In fact, for the first time, the petitioner, while filing an affidavit- in-reply, claims that his father died in extremist violence. In this regard too, the petitioner has not been able to give anything on record to show that the pe titioner’s case is squarely covered by any of the policies of the Government. In view of what has been indicated above, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Situated thus, this writ petition is not admitted and the sa me accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner shall, however, remain at liberty to apply for any post, which th e respondents seek to fill up provided that the petitioner is eligible for such post.