H^r wq^ST q;yTst^? atEri%'Br, ?"rwf i&oioi o '.*, "FT^ TOT7 ^iX?i aT.yg.st· ciOTrrTa ^tq-w ^Tfl tT^S-S?;fr riEO T^BT-?T3]qfgiri*q i&0;>!0g ... .../200 ir3/ciy 5"rrft7T»& ffTffq g-T7T-g1^g. y^n TffffT Twr^ ^Trig, eTgET? 2./T5!?rT TTOJ-T 3it4^HffI-, T3ii;iT-?T3iqfei!fg g@oTio« ST^gS sn 3)?iT9eW[ artgq s^: ai^aafh E?nT-i9 5:TT?rT;iq) 3iTETqi?oT stEttqqii !985 aT^e®T:iT;:ir=:i?rTf T^gq ®?nT1 :— -HC—7i ^"'s?'^fT'TRTq, 'gi^fkFIS, ISK'II-H^ __...lA:>.f..il.i^..-..M.^...J.O£ "t" Sn^T'T^RT ('ijl.cll^q^^) sn^; ~w ftii'* waan^ismw TOITW ^Hftg aii^sn <*l'l|t<'t<fl'i »H*raf'?fWt <fat^K ^rsffiTCS!]^! SB : Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 26-04-2010 Shri Vinod-Deshmukh, counseil Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Petitioner is aggrieved, as a^ considered his case for granting corr) death of his father on 7/01/1995. Short submission of iearned c< death of his father, the petitioner wai' majorifry in November 2000 prom^ appointment was submitted on 1/1/20i by the Principal of the school to the decision has been taken. On the other hand, respond| petitioner is not enUtled to grant of \ provision contained in circular dated a minor rnember would be entitied appointment provided he attains maj^ date of death provided there is no oti^ cases, appiications submitted after 3 Servant wiil not be entertained. Consequentiy, on 23/3/200 communicated that in view of the 1/05;'2000 he is not entttled for considi jfor the pstitioner. Advoe^te for ttie State/respondents. tsording to him, respondente have not Ipassionate appointment on account of ^nset for the petiUoner is that after the ited tili his majority and having attained py an application for compassionate p1. The said application was forwarded B)istrict Education Officer. However, no bnts have stated in their return that (sompassjonate appointment in view of 1/5/2000 wherein it has been stated that tt> consider for grant of compassionate ^rity within a period of 3 years from the jer aduit member in the famHy. In other hnonths of the death of the Government (Annexure R-2), petMoner was Idireetions contained in cireuiar dated ^ration. 6» iftw'l^ww a C£F-' TST •^l<4|iv!<1, t?T)1yi'S, ftc1l-H^< — ...to.(fe^.^o..-:.3ir^J..CS If5W i. [•'iTSTl??! Learned counsei for the petitioner) b^ served if the respondents are dir^cted to consider the case of the pfetittoner. •' - id As the respondents have aireadj aplication vide Its communication date|d 23/03/2001, such direction cannot s issued. Petitioner has not assaiied (tommunication dated 23/03/2001. in is view of the matter, no relief can be gjranted to the petitioner. The petifion <*w!i'i'^)^ iiwrfi ^ fsc6 <n«$i< ^sifgtl SD^l subrnits that interest ofjustice would ^ taken a decision and rejected the therefore dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrjvastava Judge