Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. Heard both the sides.

2. The petitioners husband had died in harness then she applied for her appointment to Class IV post on compassionate ground. By Annexure 2 she was appointed on the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dhanbad. This letter was issued on 31.3.1994.

3. A letter of department regarding compassionate appointment, as contained in Annexure 3 was issued on 12.4.1994, which reads as follows :--

"Sankhya 13 Stha-176/93, P.Ma. 2693 Pashupalan Vibhag, Bihar, Patna

Preshak. Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Nideshak, Pashupalan Vibhag, Bihar, Patna

Sewa Me, Sabhi Kshetriya Nideshak, Pashupalan

Sabhi Zila Pashupalan Padadhikari

Bishaya : Anukampa ke aadhar per keshtriya padadhikari dwara ke ja rahi niyukti ke sabandhya me.

Mahashya,

Upyukta bishaya ke ore aapka dhyan akrishta kartey huya kahana hai ki kshetriya padhadhikari dwara anukam-pa per verge 3 awang verg 4 ke path per zila striya anukampa samiti se anushansha pratra kar niyukti ke kar-wari ke jati hai jo aniyamit pratit hota hais. Gatbya ho ki vibhag me rajya stariya anukampa samiti gatidh hai es-liyae vabishya me koi bhi anukampa ke aadhar per niyukti ke karwai ke liye vihit praptra awing anya vanchit praman patron ke sath nidhasalaya vejen."

4. On perusal of this letter it appears that there was practice that the regional authority used to pass the order of appointment on compassionate ground against the Class III and IV post on the basis of recommendation of District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee, which appears to be irregular. Consequently it was directed that any State Level Compassionate Appointment Committee was existing so in future for the purposes of appointment on compassionate ground, the papers be sent to the Directorate for being processed. On perusal of this letter it appears that this letter does not approve the existing procedure of appointment on the basis of District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee and therefore, it was directed that in future the appointment be made on the recommendation of the State Level Committee.

5. From perusal of this letter it also appears that the appointment which had already been made had not to be interfered with or disturbed. Thus the operation of this annexure is perspective from 12.4.1994 and no retrospective effect was given to this letter. As stated the petitioner was appointed on 31.3.1994 therefore by operation of this letter this appointment should not have been affected but by Annexure 4 the appointment was cancelled on the ground of illegality in view of Annexure 3, she had again applied for reconsideration of her case and consequent thereto it appears that she was directed to furnish certain information and submit all the papers to the Deputy Director, Head Quarter. Then, the petitioner sent her another representation vide Annexure 6 dated 9th December, 1994 to the Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad. Thereafter the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dhanbad issued a letter to the petitioner on 1.6.2000 directing her to submit papers like death certificate, Income Certificate, caste certificate etc. and in support thereof an affidavit was also filed vide Annexure 8 on 19.6.2000. The petitioner again reminded the In-Charge, Animal Husbandry Department, Dhanbad that she has already submitted the papers required.

6. The respondents have contested the writ petition merely on two grounds :--

(1) That the District Animal Husbandry Officer was not at all competent to make such appointment, rather, it was the Regional Director of Animal Husbandry, who was competent to make such appointment and consequently the appointment was cancelled in the year 1994 and;

The petitioner has come to this Court after a lapse of seven years. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Annexures 6, 7 and 8 has submitted that right from the year 1995 till 2001 the petitioner has been pursuing the matter with the concerned authorities and therefore, it c