IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14053 of 2007 MOSTT.RADHA DEVI, W/O LATE MADHUSUDAN PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE & P.O GHUSRAWAN, P.S. GIRIYAK, DISTRICT NALANDA (BIHARSHARIF). …………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.PRINCIPLA SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR MILITRY POLICE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5.COMMANDANT, B.M.P.-5, VETRINARY COLLEGE, PATNA. …………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 11.04.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. Admittedly the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1983 and at that point of time the petitioner was aged about 9 years (his date of birth being 03.05.1974). The petitioner therefore, could not become major, even in the next two years which was the period of limitation under the existing policy then in force. The petitioner has in fact became major only in the year 1992, by which time the claim of appointment of any member of the family had come to an end due to expiry of the period of limitation. 2 That being so, this Court would not find any merit in the prayer of the writ petitioner seeking direction to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, the Government policy is not of getting one post reserved till the minor would become major. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & ors, reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414. Thus as the petitioner was ineligible at the time of the death of his father being a minor, and also that this writ application has been filed after expiry of 24 years of cause of action it has to be dismissed both on the ground of non-fulfillment of the criteria under the policy of appointment on compassionate ground as also on account of unexplained delay and laches. The submission of the learned counsel for the State, that the petitioner in fact had filed an application in the prescribed proforma only in the year 2007 has also some relevance but then the case of petitioner is even otherwise unsustainable 3 on merit. That being so, this application is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)