Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shekher Prasad Sinha, learned A.C. to G.P.-17 for the. State.

2. The petitioner assails the decision of the authority dated 15.6.2006, whereby and whereunder, his prayer for condoning the age limit for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Personnel Administrative and Reforms Department, while examining the case of the petitioner, had failed to take into account that in a similar cases of Kailash Chandra Mandal, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 17.9.1996 had chosen to condone the age limit for appointing them and since the case of the petitioner was similar, the authority was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.

4. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the father of the petitioner had died on 15.3.1980 when the policy of the Government contained in Circular dated 12th July, 1977 was in vogue, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-

^BT ^ fWl 54 ^ 3TOTH 3*FJ TSTfaT "3 ^2 ^ ¦3T! "CT^?ft tl"

5 From reading of the said circular, it also becomes cl