IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the relevant rules and policies at the time of the employee's demise and the applicant's first application for compassionate appointment, emphasizing the need for consistent application of eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Anand Gogia for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Nidhi Vyas for the respondent State.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of Rule for the respondent State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main prayers :-

“15.A. Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

B. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of appropriate nature, direction and orders setting aside the impugned order No.Aaraa. ja-102006-1661-Chh(d) dated 10.4.2019 which is annexed at Annexure-A and the respondent Authorities may please be directed to issue and release appointment order to petitioner on suitable post with the retrospective effect i.e. date of application for appointment along with all consequential benefits of pension, service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears etc.

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Authorities to offer to the petitioner the appointment on any suitable Class-III post-”C” group.”

4. It is the case of the petitioner that his late father was working as an Education Inspector in the Mid-day Meal Scheme with the respondent No.2 herein and whereas he had unfortunately expired on 23.3.2006. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, as son of the deceased employee, who had died in harness, had made an application for being appointed on compassionate ground as a Class-IV employee on 19.6.2006, since he was not having adequate qualification as required for being appointed on Class-III post. It appears that vide an order dated 7.10.2006, the respondent State had rejected the request of the respondent No.2 for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. It appears that the petitioner did not challenge the order at the relevant point of time and more particularly since the order inter alia states that the case of the petitioner could not be considered as the petitioner did not have the qualification of SSC Pass.

4.1. It appears that the petitioner had thereafter acquired the qualification of SSC and had again made an application for being appointed on compassionate ground and whereas vide communication dated 19.9.2009, respondent No.2 had rejected the request of the present petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. It appears that the petitioner had challenged both the orders before this Court i.e. orders dated 7.10.2006 and 19.9.2009 by preferring writ petition being SCA No.2927 of 2002 and whereas a learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.7.2012 had been pleased to reject the said writ petition on the ground of delay.

4.2. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the said decision by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No.1086 of 2012 and whereas Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 11.2.2019 had quashed and set aside the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 16.7.2012 as well as the impugned orders dated 7.10.2006 and 19.9.2009 and had directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner as per the extant Rules prevailing at the relevant point of time. It appears that the case of the petitioner had been considered by the respondent State i.e. respondent No.1 herein and vide an order dated 10.4.2019, the respondents had rejected the case of the petitioner, more particularly on the ground that as per the policy of the State Government i.e. the Policy of the GAD dated 16.3.2005, passing of SSC was a requisite educational qualification for being appointed to a Class-IV post, which the petitioner did not have at the relevant point of time and hence, the application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present petition is preferred.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Gogia for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have committed a gross error of passing the order dated 10.4.2019, more particularly according to learned Advocate Mr.Gogia, the said order is completely contrary and in teeth of the directions o