IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.437 of 2009 FAIYAZ AHMAD, S/O LATE DR. MD. KHALID, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. MADHOPUR, P.S.CHIRAIYA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. -PEPTITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT SECTION, COLLECTORATE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 3. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MOTIHARI. -RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS _______ For the Appellant : M/s Vijay Kr. Mishra & Gopal Govind Mishra For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG 5 7 25.11.2009 Heard the parties. For the reasons stated in I.A. no. 2287 of 2009 it is allowed and the limitation is condoned. The writ Court has noticed that father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 6th November, 1989 and at that time the writ petitioner was a minor, aged about six years and ten months. He applied for compassionate appointment after attaining majority. The writ Court has held that the time limit 2 for such application was two years and the application was rejected on 16th February, 2002 on the ground that it was beyond prescribed time limit. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the relevant time the time limit for such application was five years and not two years. He further submits that the issue that a minor cannot be given extra time to apply after attaining majority was decided later in the year 1992 and father of the writ petitioner had died earlier in 1989. In our view even if the time limit at the relevant time was five years, the writ petitioner being a minor, aged less than seven years, he could not have applied within the time. It is also well settled in law that compassionate appointment is an exception to requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India that every one should compete with all eligible persons for Government job and hence, it can be allowed only at the time or near about the time of death to meet extra ordinary difficulties and distress being faced on account of sudden death of the bread earner. In the facts of the case, we find no good reason to take a different view in the matter. The appeal is, 3 therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AAhmad