ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no such circular no. 2139 dt. 27.4.95. As such, he is not in a position to produce the same before this court. 3. In that view of the matter, the averments made in paragraph 7 of the counter - affidavit relying on the same circular can not be accepted. 4. It is not in dispute that in the instant case the petitioner submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 18.1.94 which is within five years from the date of death of the petitioner's father which took place on 28.4.89. But application of the petitioner was taken into consideration on 2.12.96, i.e., after two years from the date of making application by the petitioner on 18.1.94. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had crossed the age of eighteen years on 2.12.96. On that date as he became a major his application should have been considered on merit. 5. In that view of the matter, this court disposes of this writ petition by directing the petitioner's case to be considered on merit as he attained majority on the date his application was taken up for consideration by the Committee in question. Since the petitioner's case is to be considered afresh the previous order rejecting the petitioner's case by the said committee by its order dated 2.12.96 is quashed. In so far as the petitioner's case is concerned, the same should be considered afresh on its merit by respondent no. 2 within a period of three months from the date of service of this order on him.