WP(C) 260/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. UK Das, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. RK Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. Assam Public Services (Appointment of Family Member of Persons Killed By Extremists/Terrorists) Rules, 1992, (hereinafter referred to ’as the 1992 Rules ’) provided for appointment of a member of the family of a person, who was kille d by extremists/terrorists. While the 1992 Rules were in force, a scheme was not ified, on 29.07.1995, by the Government making available a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the members of the family of a person killed by the extremists/terrorists. Th e 1992 Rules have been repealed by a notification, dated 22.06.2004, and a new s cheme has been introduced by another notification, dated 22.06.2004, whereunder a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, as ex-gratia, is granted to the family members of a pers on killed by terrorists/extremists. During the period, when the scheme, dated 29.07.1995, and the 1992 Rules were in force, the petitioner’s father, according to what the petitioner conten ds, was killed by the extremists/terrorists on 04.09.97. Following his father’s death, the petitioner claims to have applied for a job under the 1992 Rules. The said application, according to the petitioner, was forwarded, on 03.09.98, by t he Circle Officer, Tamulpur Revenue Circle, to the Deputy Commissioner of erstwh ile Nalbari district. Thereafter, on 17.03.1999, the petitioner’s said applicati on was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, to the Secretary to the Go vt. of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, Dispur. The petitioner completed his HSLC examination in the year 2002 and, on 1 1.10.2002, the petitioner’s mother submitted a representation to the Secretary t o the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, Dispur, with a request to appoin t the petitioner to the post of peon. In the year 2004, the petitioner passed hi s HSSLC examination. The application, which the petitioner’s mother had made, on 11.10.2002, has been returned by the Government to the Deputy Commissioner, Nal bari. Aggrieved by the fact that he has not been given employment as had been as sured under the 1992 Rules, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under A rticle 226 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of appropriate directions to th e respondents. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted tha t the petitioner, as the query made by this Court from the learned counsel for t he petitioner reveals, was born in the year 1983. The petitioner was, thus, admi ttedly, 14 years old at the time, when his father died in the year 1997. The app lication, seeking job under the 1992 Rules, which the petitioner had made in the year 1998, was, admittedly, made by the petitioner at the time, when the petiti oner was 15 years old. The petitioner having applied for the job, when he was a minor, the said application was untenable in law during the entire period, when the 1992 Rules remained in force. After becoming major, the petitioner has, admittedly, not applied for jo b or for drawing benefit under the 1992 Rules. On the other hand, it is the peti tioner’s mother, who made a representation, on 11.10.2002, to the Government req uesting that the present petitioner be employed as a peon. Thus, at no point of time, the petitioner, on becoming major applied for job under the 1992 Rules and as far as the petitioner’s mother is concerned, sh e being not applicant herself, the question of applying the 1992 Rules to her ap plication did not arise at all. In fact, the petitioner became major in the year 2001 and since after 20 01, the petitioner has not till date applied for job. In the meanwhile, however, the 1992 Rules, as indicated above, stand rep ealed by notification, dated 22.06.2004, and a new scheme has been introduced by another notification, dated 22.06.2004. This new scheme, as laid down by a Divi sion Bench of this Court, in WP(C) No.3355/2007, is prospective in nature. The p etitioner’s case is, therefore, not covered under the scheme, which has been not ified on 22.06.2004. The petitioner is, thus, not an applicant under the 1992 Rules nor is he covered by the scheme, which has been introduced by the notification, dated 22. 06.2004. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case warranting this Court’s exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdicti on under Article 226. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall ac cordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Before parting with this writ petition, it is, however, made cle ar that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not be treated as a bar for the petitioner to claim any benefit, which he may, otherwise, be entitled to under the new scheme, which has been introduced by notification, dated 22.06.2004, afo rementioned.