WA 346/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR RS GARG HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr JNUM Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23-10-200 9 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1073/2008 dismissing the petiti on filed by the petitioner asking for compassionate appointment or at least a re commendation, has come to this court with a submission that the learned Single J udge could not properly appreciate paragraph 4 of the Circular No.ABP 357/80/137 dated 9th Sept, 1983. It is contended that the District Level Committee had for warded the name of the appellant for her appointment as Class IV employee and al so referred the name of respondent No.6 for her appointment on compassionate gro und in Class III. The further submission is that the State Level Committee was a bsolutely unjustified in rejecting the candidature of the appellant observing th at the recommendations made in favour of the appellant were crossing the limit o f 5%. After dismissal of the writ petition the petitioner has come to us and has raised the same arguments. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case there is only one vacancy, each in Class III or Class IV service, to be filled then the restriction would not apply. His submission is that as there wa s only one post of Class IV employee the restriction contained in paragraph 4 wo uld not to apply. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal. 4. Paragraph 4 of the said Circular (Annexure-A) reads as under :- 4. Not more than 5% of the vacancies in Class III Service (Not above the le vel of Lower Division Assistant) or in Class IV Service arising in a year will b e filled up under this scheme. This restriction will not apply where only one va cancy each in Class-III or Class-IV service is filled up under this scheme in a year. 5. A perusal of paragraph 4 would show that it is in two parts. The first p art placed a restriction on appointment in Class III or Class IV service and say s that 5% of the vacancies in each of the cadres are required to be reserved for compassionate appointment. The second part says that the said restriction would not apply if there is only one vacancy each in Class III or Class IV service to be filled under the scheme in a year. The word restriction is to be understoo d in reference to the first part of the paragraph. In fact the reservation of 5% of the vacancies in a year against the vacancies in Class III or Class IV servi ce is a restriction against the Government and they cannot fill more than 19 pos ts out of 20 and 1 out of 20 will have to be earmarked for compassionate appoint ment. In the case when there is only one post the reservation restriction would not apply. If that be so the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in di smissing the petition. 6. We find no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.