Hon’ble Ferdino I. Rebello, C.J.—This special appeal is preferred by the appellant, who sought appointment on compassionate basis on attaining majority after the death of his father on 26th of May, 1986. Late father of the appellant was working on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector in Rajkiya Krishi Beej Bhandar, District Rae Bareli. On account of the death of his father, who was the sole bread earner, the entire family is facing financial crunch and it became impossible for the family to make both ends meet. The family of the deceased had no immovable property and they are living in the rented house and there was nobody to support the family. The mother of the appellant was illiterate and was not aware of the benefits and thus, did not claim compassionate appointment under the State Rules, which are known as U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The appellant was born on 2nd of February, 1984 and on completion of 18 years of age, he preferred a representation dated 4th of August, 2001 before the District Agriculture Officer requesting for his appointment on compassionate basis as the financial and social problems occasioned by the death of his father continue. The family of the appellant consists of his mother, three sisters and another brother. The mother of the appellant also gave no objection on 29th of August, 2001. Though the authorities below forwarded and recommended the case of the appellant for relaxing the condition to make the application in time, the same was not acted upon. Thereafter the appellant finally made a representation to the Minister of Agriculture, to which he received an order issued on 28th of February, 2002, rejecting the representation on the ground that the representation made by the appellant for appointment on compassionate basis was time barred and there was no justification for granting compassionate appointment to him. The said letter was served upon the appellant only on 22nd of October, 2002.

The appellant, thereafter preferred a writ petition before this Court. A learned Judge of this Court, vide his order, which is subject matter of the present appeal, was pleased to hold that the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The stand of the State-respondents is that the writ petitioner’s application was barred by time and, therefore, they refused to extend the benefit of relaxation on the ground that there is no justification for relaxation.

2. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that no reason had been assigned for rejecting his application. The learned Judge was pleased to hold that before such an argument could be advanced, the appellant-writ petitioner should have demonstrated that any right of the appellant-writ petitioner is affected. The learned Judge further observed that since the appellant-writ petitioner applied beyond the limitation prescribed by the Rules, which was five years, he could not establish his right and once the right is not established, he cannot invoke the discretion of the State for relaxation, in the event of his claim being time barred. It is this matter, which the subject matter of the present appeal.

3. The relevant rule for consideration of appointment on compassionate basis is rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, which reads as follows :

“5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.—(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in