Judgment :- Seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order of the first respondent made in letter No.069491/1014/G-8/G-81/2004-3 dated 22.01.2005 and also to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner in any suitable job in the respondent department, this writ petition has been brought forth. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his father was working as Wireman (SR No.1837) in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Krishnapuram, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle; that he died on 19. 1996 leaving behind him his wife and children, including the petitioner, as his legal heirs; that his mother has originally applied for his appointment on compassionate ground even in the year 1998 twice; that the petitioner was minor at that time and he completed 18 years on 23. 2001; that he made an application on 9. 2001; that his application was rejected, stating that he has not possessed necessary qualification and the application was not made within a period of three years from the time of the death of his father; that subsequently, in memo, dated 16. 1997, the Department has stated that if the legal heir had not completed 18 years of age within three years from the date of the death of the employee, the legal heir can apply for compassionate appointment on completion of 18 years of age and that if such an application is made on completion of 18 years, it would be considered as per the board regulations existing at that time; that subsequently, a memo was issued cancelling the part that even if the application is made after attaining majority, it could be considered. Under these circumstances, he made his application on attaining majority and he had necessary qualifications and he was eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground and that was not properly considered by the Department and under these circumstances, a direction has got to be issued to the respondents Department. 4. Under these circumstances, he made his application on attaining majority and he had necessary qualifications and he was eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground and that was not properly considered by the Department and under these circumstances, a direction has got to be issued to the respondents Department. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the Board proceedings, a person, seeking for appointment on compassionate ground, i.e. the heirs of the person, who was in service in the electricity board, should have completed 18 years at the time of placing his application and he should have passed 8th standard and the application for appointment on compassionate ground should have been made within three years from the date of the death of the employee, but in the instant case, all the three conditions were not satisfied and under these circumstances, the application was rejected and hence, the petition has got to be dismissed. 5. The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. From the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be seen that when the application was made by the mother of the petitioner in the year 1998, the petitioner was below 18 years and it is an admitted position that his father died in the year 1996. Admittedly, he made an application on 9. 2001 on completion of 18 years and he has also possessed qualification by passing 8th standard. When he made an application, there was a reply by the Board, stating that if the application is made after completion of 18 years, that would be considered as per the Board proceedings then prevailing at that time. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even as per the Board proceedings, though he had necessary qualifications and has also passed 8th standard, his application could not be entertained in view of the fact that he has not made his application within three years from the date of the death of his father. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Board proceedings, now relied on by the respondents, came to be in force from 4. 2002, but the application was made by the petitioner even on 9. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Board proceedings, now relied on by the respondents, came to be in force from 4. 2002, but the application was made by the petitioner even on 9. 2001 and under these circumstances, the Board proceedings, which were in force at the time of filing of the application, have got to be taken into consideration and if it is applied, the petitioner would be eligible to be considered for the post. Under these circumstances, the court feels it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to the first respondent to apply the Board proceedings then prevailing at the time of filing of the application and if the petitioner is eligible, there cannot be any impediment to consider his application and pass suitable orders within a period of eight weeks herefrom. Accordingly, a direction is issued and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.