The main legal point established is that the government's uniform policy on age relaxation for compassionate appointments violated constitutional guarantees and the need to consider each case on its own merits.

2. Notice.

3. Mr. Kakkar appeared and submitted that he has instructions to accept notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel also submitted that objections already filed by him supported by an affidavit be treated as counter affidavit. His statement is taken on record. Prayer allowed. Mrs. Neeru appeared and submitted that she has instructions to accept notice on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. Learned counsel further submitted that counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 is adopted by respondents 4 and 5. Her statement is taken on record. Prayer allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the facts obtaining in this case, he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit. His statement is taken on record.

5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

6. Husband of the petitioner, who was substantively holding the post of Pump Driver in PHE Department, died in harness on 2nd January, 2003. Petitioner immediately thereafter filed an application seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. Her case was considered by the State authorities at various levels and was forwarded to the competent authority m the Government viz. Respondents 2 and 3 for considering her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds in Government services. It appears from the documents which are placed on writ record that even the recommendations were made by the respondents 4 and 5 within a period of six months from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner.

7. When the respondents failed to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner, she was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ petition SWP No. 51/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 15.01.2009, directing the respondents to take final decision about the claim of petitioner for her compassionate appointment within a period of six weeks. It was also directed that the result of the decision be communicated to the petitioner.

8. Respondents have passed Government Order No. 583-GAD of 2009 dated 24.04.2009, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Paragraph 4 of the impugned order is reproduced as under:

"Whereas in terms of Rule 3 of Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994, in force at the relevant point of time, an applicant should have been qualified and eligible or who acquires the said eligibility within a period of (6) months from the date of death of the deceased person. The Government as a matter of policy considers grant of relaxation upto (5) years beyond (37) years for entry into Government service, in respect of the cases falling under SRO 43 of 1994. The relaxation policy is followed on uniform basis in all such cases. The case of the petitioner has been examined by applying this uniform policy for grant of (5) years beyond prescribed (37) years but she was still overaged by (5) years (11) months and (1) day as on 01.01.2006 and accordingly her claim was rejected. The decision of the Government was accordingly conveyed to PHE, I & FC Department on 13.09.2006. It has also been found that the petitioner had also served a legal notice on 13.11.2008 which was duly replied informing the petitioner about the rejection of her claim vide communication No. GAD (L) F-405/08 dated 29.01.2009."

9. Petitioner, being aggrieved of the said order, has challenged the same in this writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the claim for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within the time provided by Rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994; the recommendation were made by the department within a period of six months to the respondents 2 and 3; respondents having failed to take a decision in the matter resulted in delayed consideration of the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds, the ground taken in the impugned order for rejecting claim of petitioner is not tenable in l