( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the decision of the respondents, to not to accede to the request for compassionate appointment by the respondent no. 1-State of Gujarat.

( 2 ) AT this stage, let there be first a skeleton projection of facts, relevant and material for the purpose of the consideration of the merits of this petition. (i) The petitioners mother, deceased Raniben was serving on the post of Auxiliary Nurse-midwife under District Panchayat, Bharuch. (ii) She had divorced her husband who happens to be the father of the petitioner. (iii) Raniben remarried and despite that the petitioner was staying with the deceased, where she was working and was dependant on her, as per the case of the petitioner. (iv) Petitioners mother died while in service on 16/10/1979. At that time, the petitioner was minor and on attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment. (v) Since the respondents were not considering his claim for compassionate appointment, he filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 338/86. (vi) The said first petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation awaiting consideration at that time. (vii) Upon direction, the respondent authority considered and rejected the representation, and, therefore, the petitioner was prompted to file second writ petition, being SCA 3891/86. It was also rejected by this Court and was confirmed in Letter Patents Appeal No. 124/87 with a direction to consider the question of giving compassionate appointment afresh.

( 3 ) IT is in this context thereafter the respondent-authority rejected, the representation of the petitioner on 28/3/94, and, therefore, again this third round of litigation of invocation of extraordinary, planery, equitable, discretionary powers of this Court for the issuance of the writ or any direction.

( 4 ) AFTER having examined extensively, the factual aspects, the norms prescribed in the Government Policy for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and the reasons why two earlier representations came to be rejected, this is the third round of litigation, which in the opinion of this Court, is not worth the candle for invocation of writ jurisdiction, as successive representations were already made and they are met with grand failure, which would not "ipso-facto" justify every time the invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise there would be no end of the litigation. No person can be allowed to agitate the same point more than once ordinarily and cannot be encouraged when he goes on invoking such provisions of Constitution, merely, on the ground that again the representation has been rejected. This sole ground is sufficient enough to reject the three petitions on the same ground.

( 5 ) NOTWITHSTANDING that, even upon examination of the factual scenario emerging from the record of the present case, the circumscribed periphery of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ Court under the power of judicial review has not to consider and examine the quality of the decision rendered or the type of the decision taken but only the process through which the decision has been reached, nothing has been pointed out from the record of the present petition which would even remotely suggest the interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nor it is spelt out from the record of the case which would show that there is violation of principles of natural justice or any breach of the prescribed procedure for affording the opportunity of hearing to the party in a given case or is tainted by any other extraneous consideration, unconcerned with the merits or being perverse, resulting into gross failure of justice.

( 6 ) THE entire process of judicial review is to consider the manner and mode in which the decision has