The petitioner has stated that his father P.Nagan had died, on 22.5.2002, while he was employed under the respondent Board. Since, the family of the petitioner was in indigent circumstances, he had requested the management of the respondent Board for appointment on compassionate grounds. In spite of the several representations made by the petitioner, and even after he had produced all the necessary documents, the first respondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 2.9.2006, rejecting the request of the petitioner, stating that he should have applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds, within three years from the date of the death of his father. It had also been stated that the petitioner should not be over 35 years of age.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 35 years only for the reason that there was a ban on recruitment, as per the relevant government order. After the ban imposed by the Government had been relaxed and as the upper age limit had also been increased by way of the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.91, Personnel and Administrative Reforms

(P) Department, dated