( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate Mr. . Brahmbhatt ( 2 ) THE petitioner, a former employee of the State Government, challenges the order of discharge from service made on 15th July, 2003 and also seeks appointment as Peon on compassionate grounds. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was, being the son of a deceased servant of the State Government, by order dated 4th July, 1997 appointed as a Peon on compassionate grounds. For the said compassionate employment the petitioner had been given benefit of relaxation in the age bar. Since his appointment as Peon, pursuant to his application, by order dated 27th April, 1998 the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on compassionate ground on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. Under the said terms and conditions the petitioner was, inter alia, required to undergo the pre-service training and to pass the post training examination. The petitioner, though underwent the required training, failed to pass the examination. The petitioner was, therefore, by order dated 15th July, 2003, discharged from service in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. The petitioner has also claimed, in the alternative, to be reverted as Peon. ( 5 ) MR. BRAHMBHATT has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Coram: S. K. Keshote, J.) in the matter of Kokilaben Harshadrai Pancholi v/s. Development Commissioner and others [1998 (2) GCD 1058 (Guj)]. He has submitted that in similar facts this Court has held that, Once compassionate appointment is given it cannot be taken away at a later point of time under the pretext of non-fulfilling certain service conditions. Mr. Brahmbhatt has also submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as Peon. Since then, he was promoted as Clerk. The petitioner, therefore, shall be reverted to the post of Peon. ( 6 ) I see no substance in the contentions raised by Mr. Brahmbhatt. First, it is not true that the petitioner was promoted as Clerk from the post of Peon. The order of appointment dated 27th April, 1998 is self-explanatory. It was the petitioner who applied for appointment as Clerk on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground by direct selection. The claim for reversion to the post of Peon is, therefore, not tenable. The order of appointment dated 27th April, 1998 is self-explanatory. It was the petitioner who applied for appointment as Clerk on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground by direct selection. The claim for reversion to the post of Peon is, therefore, not tenable. ( 7 ) THE petitioners appointment as a Clerk on compassionate ground was subject to the conditions mentioned in the order of appointment. The petitioner was, therefore, required to satisfy the said conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to pass the relevant examination which should entail the order of discharge. The order of discharge being in consonance with the terms of appointment does not call for interference. ( 8 ) AS to the judgment in the matter of Kokilaben Harshadrai Pancholi (supra), it should be noted that the learned Single Judge did hold that, once compassionate appointment is given it cannot be taken away at a later point of time under the pretext of non-fulfilling certain service conditions. When these appointments are not subject to selection and probation, then I fail to see what for a further condition of passing of pre-service training examination has to be put. In the said matter it was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the condition of passing of pre-service training examination by a Clerk is a statutory requirement. The matter was earlier decided by another Bench of this Court against the concerned servant. In the matter of Bharatkumar Shivabhai Jadav v/s. Deputy District Development Officer, Kheda and others [ 1996 (2) GLH 646 ] identical was the issue before the learned Single Judge (Coram: R. K. Abichandani, J. ). The Bench relied upon certain unreported judgments and upheld the action of discharge of the concerned Clerk appointed as such on compassionate ground. The learned Single Judge held that,. Under the scheme for giving compassionate appointments, there is a clause which clearly provides that no concession such as exemption from Pre-service Departmental Examination or in service Departmental Examination or any other concession in service matter shall be granted to the compassionate appointees. The aforesaid judgment was not brought to the notice of the Bench in the matter of Kokilaben Harshadrai Pancholi (supra ). The aforesaid judgment in the matter of Bharatkumar Shivabhai Jadav being earlier, shall hold the field. The aforesaid judgment was not brought to the notice of the Bench in the matter of Kokilaben Harshadrai Pancholi (supra ). The aforesaid judgment in the matter of Bharatkumar Shivabhai Jadav being earlier, shall hold the field. The judgment in the matter of Kokilaben Harshadrai Pancholi (supra) is per incurium the judgment in the matter of Bharatkumar Shivabhai Jadav (supra ). The petitioners discharge from service was, therefore, legal and proper and does not warrant interference. Moreover, the challenge to the said order also requires to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reason the petition is summarily rejected. .