ORDER Limitation is condoned. 2. The case as is being submitted on the Letters Patent Appeal was not the case which was submitted before the learned Judge who was deciding the writ petition. The issue brought to the High Court on the writ petition was a relief that compassionate appointment be granted to the petitioner Munna Khan. The learned Judge was of the opinion that as the petitioner's father had died when he was 13 years old, a public appointment could not be made even on the principle of providing compassionate appointment. The petition was dismissed. 3. In the Letters Patent Appeal Munna Khan comes out with a new case. He says notwithstanding that he was a minor yet the state should consider him for employment as a "Baal Arakshi" (literally translated it means 'Child Constable'). He relies on an earlier order in CWJC No. 6306 of 1998. 4. The Court is afraid that the High Court cannot legislate to create more confusion than otherwise exists in the grant of compassionate appointments. This Court has already made observations in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2003 (Kesho Ram Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), that compassionate appointments may be a policy for the government but it virtually works as a Zamindari for a government servant specially in a State where millions are unemployed. Now, a slot is being created for the wards of government servant. There is no law; only a policy. Now to direct the State Government that minors be given appointment in this special slot will make a mockery of the whole system including the policy of the compassionate appointment. 5. Dismissed.