WP(C) 2185/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B P KATAKEY Heard Mr. A Y Choudhury, learned, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also hear d Mr. H K Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the ASEB. The petitioners by the present petition have challenged the sche me for appointment on compassionate ground formulated by the Respondent Board as circulated vide office order dated 30.04.2005 issued by the Manager ( Personnel ) ASEB, on the ground that by such scheme, the scope of appointment on compassio nate ground has been restricted to the employees killed due to extremist violenc e and the employees who died in harness or died due to accident or mishap while on board’s duty. The father of the petitioner No.3, 2 and 1 died in the year 1996, 2000 and 2001 respectively. In the paragraph-3 of the writ petition filed, it has been stated that the petitioners could not apply for appointment on comp assionate ground immediately on the death of their fathers who died in harness a nd could apply only after they became major. In paragraph- 4 , the petitioners w ithout disclosing the dates on which they filed their respective applications, h ave, however, stated that they filed the applications for appointment on compass ionate ground, which have not been considered because of the policy decision of the Board as reflected in the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2005. Reading the ave rments made in the writ petitioners, it transpires that the petitioners filed th eir application for appointment on compassionate ground, if at all, on or after 30.08.2005. The object of making appointment on compassionate ground is t o give immediate relief to the family of the person who was the sole bread winne r and died in harness. The object of such appointment being to tied over the imm ediate financial crunch faced by the family because of the death of the bread wi nner, no directions can be issued to consider the case of the petitioner for app ointment on compassionate ground who lost their fathers in the year, 1996, 2000 and 2001 respectively. In view of the above, at the instance of the present petiti on , legality or validity of the office memorandum dated 30.08.2005 cannot be s crutinized. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.