H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Y. M. Thakor appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Mistry appearing on behalf of respondent - State. ( 2 ) THE father of the petitioner died on 26th May 2003. The application for compassionate appointment was made for class III as petitioner is possessing requisite educational qualification for the post of Class III, but, appointment was given in Class IV category by order dated 22nd September 2005. Before that, on 9th april 2004, application was made by the petitioner to the respondents to appoint him in the post of Junior Clerk as he is possessing the requisite education qualification for the post of Junior Clerk. This application has been forwarded by dsp to Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandagi mandal. The answer given by said Mandal on 16th August 2005 rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment in the category of Class III relying upon two resolutions dated 13th January 2005 and 24th June 2005 issued by GAD, State of gujarat. According to aforesaid two resolutions for Class III, knowledge of computer is must, otherwise, such candidate should not have to be appointed in Class III, Due to comnelling circumstances, petitioner has accepted the appointment order dated 22nd September 2001 in Class IV and subsequently, he cleared the computer CCC Course and application, to that effect, forwarded by physician Class I, Government Ayurved hospital, Sidhdhapur to Director, Indian medicine and Homeopathy System on 12th may 2006 to consider the case of petitioner for Class. Accordingly, petitioner has also made application to the concerned authority on 12th May 2006, but, that remains answered. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakor submitted that case of petitioner is required to be considered by the respondent as per policy prevailing at the relevant time when the father of the petitioner died on 26th May 2003. Subsequent change cannot be taken into account while examining the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. When the application was made by the petitioner, aforesaid two resolutions dated 13th January 2005 and 24th June 2005 were not in existence. Therefore, he submitted that decision of not giving appointment in class II category is erroneous. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakor relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in case of ABHISHEK KUMAR v/s. STATE OF HARYANA and ORS. Therefore, he submitted that decision of not giving appointment in class II category is erroneous. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakor relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in case of ABHISHEK KUMAR v/s. STATE OF HARYANA and ORS. reported in 2006 (13) SCALE page 658 dated 4th december, 2006. The relevant Para 5 is quoted as under : "5. Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana, a State wise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate ground. He was offered such an appointment by the state. It was the District Magistrate who came on the way and refused to provide for the post. " ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakor also relied upon the decision in case of STATE bank OF INDIA and ORS. V/s. JASPAL kaur REPORTED IN JT 2007 (3) 35. The relevant Para 30 is quoted as under: "30. Finally in the fact situation of this case, Sr. Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), record Assistant (Cash and Accounts) on 01. 08. 1999, in the Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar branch, passed away. The respondent, widow of Sr. Sukhbir Inder Singh applied for compassionate appointment in the appellant bank on 05. 02. 2000 under the scheme which was formulated in 2005. The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 04. 08. 2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of deceased is rs. 5855/- only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by Late Shr. Sukhbir inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of deceased is rs. 5855/- only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by Late Shr. Sukhbir inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water. " ( 6 ) IN view of aforesaid facts, the application which was forwarded by physician Class I, Government Ayurved hospital dated 12th May 2006 and similarly made by petitioner not decided by the respondents, it is directed to the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for Class III on the basis of observations made by Apex Court as referred above that at the time of death of his father. e. 26th May 2003, whatever policy for compassionate appointment was prevailing, same is required to be applied to the case of petitioner, but, subsequent change in the policy will not be made applicable while examining the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment in class III category, and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receiving the copy of the said order and communicate the same to the petitioner immediately. ( 7 ) IN view of above observations and direction, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service is permitted. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, in case, if, ultimate decision of the respondent - authority is against the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.