IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1356 of 2009 Vijay Kumar, son of Late Muna Ram, resident of Mohalla-Chhoti Badalpur, P.O. & P.S. Khagaul, Dist-Patna. Versus 1. The state of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Inspector General, Home Guard, Chajjubagh, Patna. 3. The Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, Headquarters, Chhajjubagh, Patna. 4. The Commandant, Central Training Institute, Bihar Home Guards, Bihta, District-Patna. ----------- 2. 26.04.2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order contained in memo No. 2357 dated 30.10.2006 as contained in Annexure-1, addressed to the Commandant Central Training Institute, Bihta by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that application was time barred. From the orders it appears that father of the petitioner died on 16.08.2000 while in service and petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was received in Headquarter on 19.08.2006. Thus, the same was found time barred and hence it was rejected as such. In the back ground of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is appropriate to produce his pleadings made in the writ application in different paragraphs:- 5. That the petitioner who is the eldest son of Late Muna Ram was a minor, aged about 12 years when his father Muna Ram died in the year 2000 and when he approached the Office of the Respondent No. 4 for his employment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father, he was told to make an application for the said appointment after attaining majority. 6. That after attaining majority the petitioner who has studied upto Class VIII submitted an application on 19/08/2006 before the Respondent No. 4 for his appointment on Class 2 IV post on Compassionate ground which is evident from the impugned order. 10. That it is submitted that the mother of the petitioner pre- deceased his father and the petitioner who was aged about 12 years at that time was eldest amongst three brothers as an elder only his old grandmother was alive but was not fit for her employment so was the petitioner being minor. Therefore, no application could be made by the petitioner for his appointment at that relevant time. Thus, from the pleadings made in the writ application the consistent case of the petitioner is that (i) he was aged about 12 years at the time of death of his father; (ii) when he went to apply for compassionate appointment, he was asked to submit his application after attendance majority; (iii) hence, he did not submit his application at that time and (iv) after attaining majority he submitted his application on 19.08.2006. Counter affidavit has been filed and it is stated that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred as it was received on 19.08.2006. Petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in the case. Along with supplementary affidavit he has produced a hand written application dated 09.01.2001 addressed to the Commandant of Central Training Institute, Bihta as Annexure-5. It is claimed that petitioner had filed this application at that time itself, therefore, the application of the petitioner was not time barred. He has also produced a letter of the Commandant, Central Training Institute Bihta dated 11.05.2007, addressed to the Commandant Bihar Homeguards, in which the Commandant, Central Training Institute, Bihta has said that the petitioner had filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground soon after the death of his father. On the basis of these two 3 documents learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner was within five years and, therefore, as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Pinki Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.( 1997 (1) PLJR 617) and in the case of Ram Chandra Marrick vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (2009 (2) PLJR 327) his application was within time and had to consider by the respondents on merit. This Court is unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner because of two reasons. In the main writ application the main stands of the petitioner is that he did not apply for compassionate appointment before on the death of his father, as he was asked by the authorities to submit his application after he attains majority. Hence, he submitted his application on 19.08.2006. There is no pleading in the writ application that he had filed any application before 19.08.2006 before any authority. Secondly, admittedly, petitioner was aged about 12 years at the time of death of his father as per his pleadings. Hence on the date of Annexure-5, the said hand written application which he has produced with the supplementary affidavit, now his age on that date was only 13 years, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment. In the circumstances, any application of the petitioner, even if filed on 19.01.2001, could not be entertained by the respondents. In the circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. Prakash ( Jayanandan Singh, J.)