JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to offer an appointment to the petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground.

3. Having heard both the sides and having gone through the record, it appears that petitioner No.1 is 44 years old. His mother Laxmibai expired on 15- 12-2002, while she was in service. Petitioner No.1 was then 27 years old. He claims to have no knowledge of the policy of the government in respect of appointment on compassionate ground. When the petitioner No.1 came to know about such policy, he submitted his first application on 21/3/2006 with the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate ground. He was 31 years old at that time. He made repeated request for his appointment, but respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not take cognizance of his request.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2002 when mother of petitioner No.1 expired, the then existing policy permitted the persons like petitioners to make an application for appointment on compassionate ground within the period of five