Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these applications since involve common questions of facts and law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. All these petitioners have prayed for setting aside the resolution dated 16.6.1998 passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Kaimur at Bhabua whereby and whereunder claims of the petitioners have been rejected for appointment on the post of Chowkidars. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for appointment on the post of Chowkidar, as per Government circular as contained in Annexure-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were engaged to work as chowkidars since 1981, 1984 and 1985, respectively, and they worked till 1985 and, therefore, their cases were to be considered as per rules prevailing prior to 1990. It is further submitted by learned counsel that necessary commands were issued by the respective Police Stations in the names of the petitioners showing them as chowkidars and permissible remunerations were paid to them and when they applied for their appointment on compassionate ground on the death of their kith and kin, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended their names for appointment on the post of Chowkidars but ultimately, the concerned authority rejected their claims on untenable grounds. 5. The matter was heard by this Court and this Court vide order dated 9.12.2002 directed the State Counsel to verify the fact as to whether the petitioners had worked for some time prior to 1990 and in case they had worked then why their cases should not be governed by the old rules existing before 1990 and pursuant to the query of this Court, as referred to above, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 stating therein, inter alia, that there is no document available to show that the petitioners, in fact, had worked for some time as chowkidars prior to 1990 and further the matter was enquired into by two officers and ultimately, a report was submitted by the Additional Collector, Kaimur to the Collector Kaimur on 27.2.2003 stating therein that the petitioners had notworked upto 1985 on the post of chowkidars nor at present either of the petitioners is working on the post of chowkidar. 6. 6. In view of the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit, as referred to above, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Officers incharge had issued commands in the names of the petitioners and permissible remunerations were paid to them. 7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, when it is reported after holding enquiry that the petitioners had never worked prior to 1990, no question now arises to consider their cases for appointment on the post of chowkidars, as per existing rules prior to 1990. Mere recommendation of the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground does not confer any right to the petitioners as their applications were required to be forwarded and recommended for their appointment on compassionate ground as they had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. For the reasons aforementioned. It is observed that post, even if available, should now be filled up in accordance with the rules existing after 1990. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in these applications. They are, accordingly, dismissed.