1. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent. The respondent had filed the writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2296/2002 seeking direction for his appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father in harness while in employment of the appellant Bank.

2. Brief facts of the case that K.N Sharma, father of the respondent, who was Assistant Chief Officer in the appellant Bank, died on 6.7.1995. On 24.7.1995, the respondent, who happened to be the youngest of the three sons, applied for compassionate appointment. The application was rejected on 17.11.1995. The respondent filed representation seeking re-consideration of his claim. The representation was rejected on 2.8.1996. The writ petition was filed some time in 2002.

3. The learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition by the impugned order, directed the appellants "to provide appointment" to the respondent. As the respondent had become over age, the learned Judge also directed that age bar be relaxed. The learned Judge referred to the case of one Vrijesh Shah who had been appointed by the appellant Bank after relaxing the upper age limit. The learned Judge observed that the Bank can not adopt pick and choose method and reject the claim of the respondent on the ground of age bar.

4. Shri G.K. Garg, counsel for the appellants submitted that it is the settled law that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution the High Court can only direct the Government or other authorities to consider the case of a person; it can not straightway direct his appointment. Counsel referred to State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448 . In any case, counsel urged, the learned Single Judge could not direct relaxation of age which is matter of discretion to be exercised by competent authority, and not by this Court on judicial side. Counsel submitted that the learned Judge committed error in directing appointment of the respondent citing the case of the Vrijesh Shah. The claim of Vrijesh Shah was allowed on different facts, and in any view, wrong exercise of discretion in one case cannot justify similar wrong exercise of discretion in another case.

5. Counsel submitted that the case of respondent did not come within the ambit of the Scheme framed by the Bank for compassionate appointment, inasmuch as his two elder brothers are employed. One of them is engaged in his own business and the other one is in private employment. Besides, it was stated, the widow of K.N. Sharma is in receipt of family pension. She had also been paid gratuity etc. at the time of death of K.N. Sharma. Therefore, having regard to the financial condition of the family it was not considered to be a suitable case for compassionate appointment. Counsel lastly submitted that in any view of the matter the claim of the respondent could not be allowed on account of delay. In this regard counsel cited the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 .Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, counsel for the respondent submitted that the only ground on which the claim of the respondent was rejected as per the reply filed before the Single Judge was that the respondent was overage. No ground regarding financial condition of the family was taken. Counsel heavily relied on the case of Vrijesh Shah. It was submitted that Vrijesh Shah came from a well-to-do family. His grand-father was a senior 1 engineer in the Government department. He owns a house in a posh locality at Jaipur and, therefore, his financial condition was not such as to entitle him to compassionate appointment, but not only his case was found to be suitable for compassionate appointment but his age was also relaxed by two years. On the point of delay, Shri Sharma submitted that 'the respondent had filed appeal against rejection of his application for compassionate appointment on 1.1.2001 which was entertai