IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1649 of 2007 Rajiv Kumar, son of Late Maheshwar Das, Resident of Village Ladora, P.O. Ladora Pakri, District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar) ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.District Collector, Muzaffarpur 3.Circle Officer, Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur …………. Respondents. ----------- 2. 16/07/2010 From Annexure-2 it appears that the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment was earlier rejected by the District Compassionate Committee on 7.6.2005 on the ground that he was only 7th class pass. Thereafter petitioner produced certificate of 8th class pass but his case has been rejected by the Committee the second time in its meeting dated 10.8.2006 on the ground that his application was time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was only 7th class pass at the time of submission of his application for compassionate appointment, but he had passed 8th class before consideration of his case by the Committee for the first time. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Committee and his application was rejected 2 earlier on the ground of he having passed only 7th class. Hence, as admitted in the counter affidavit itself, petitioner submitted an application for fresh consideration of his case in view of the fact that he had already passed 8th class before his case was earlier considered by the Committee. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Committee, but the Committee, considering his application as fresh application for compassionate appointment, rejected the same as time barred. He submits that the petitioner had filed the application for reconsideration of his earlier application in view of the fact that he had already passed 8th class before it was considered by the Committee on 7.6.2005. Therefore, his original application was to be considered by the Committee in view of his having passed 8th class prior to consideration by the Committee and his eligibility for compassionate appointment had to be taken into account as on 7.6.2005. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had applied for reconsideration of his case. This shows that 3 his application could not be considered as fresh application but only an application for reconsideration of his original application, which was admittedly submitted within time. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the approach of the Committee in its meeting dated 10.8.2006 in rejecting the application of the petitioner as time barred is not correct. The same is accordingly quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for his eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground as on 7.6.2005 taking into account the fact that before that date petitioner had passed 8th class. This consideration should be made in the next meeting of the District Compassionate Committee itself. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)