JUDGEMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsels for respondent No. 5 and the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.1.2006 with respect to Sl. No. 29 therein by which the respondent No. 5, who he claims to be his younger brother, has been appointed on compassionate ground. 3. The mother of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 died on 10.11.2000 while still in government service. Thereafter the petitioner as also the respondent No. 5 applied for compassionate appointment on the said post. On the case of the petitioner not having been decided by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 7140/05 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.6.2005 with a direction to the respondent-authorities to decide the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground one way or the other in accordance with law. Against the said order, the respondent No. 5 preferred LPA No. 979/2005 which was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 5.9.2005 holding that there is no question of entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal filed by a party, who was not originally a party in the writ petition where the direction has been given to the authority to decide the application based on compassionate ground as early as possible in accordance with the rules, and it will be for the appellant to pursue the remedy before the authority concerned who is going to consider the application on merits. 4. Consequent upon the aforesaid direction, the District Compassionate Committee, Patna met on 31.1.2006 and taking note of the aforesaid order of this Court passed in the writ petition, noted the fact that in the light of the same the Department had sent the proposal of younger brother of the petitioner and on considering the said proposal recommended for his appointment on Class IV post since there were no vacancy in Class III post. Aggrieved by the said decision of the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. In support of his case learned Counsel relies upon an affidavit sworn on 5.8.2004 by his deceased mother in which she had stated that after her death the appointment on compassionate ground should be given to her elder son, the petitioner, Anil Prasad Jaiswal. 5. In support of his case learned Counsel relies upon an affidavit sworn on 5.8.2004 by his deceased mother in which she had stated that after her death the appointment on compassionate ground should be given to her elder son, the petitioner, Anil Prasad Jaiswal. It is further submitted that the petitioners application was also supported by affidavits of sisters in favour of the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner was Class VII pass but it is asserted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no circular of the Government that qualification of being 8th Class pass is required for appointment on compassionate ground in the Government. It is sought to be argued that the qualification which has been fixed by the State Government by circular No. 7805 dated 23.9.2002 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department fixing the minimum educational qualification as Class 8th pass for appointment on Class IV post only relates to regular appointments to the said post and has no application to appointment on compassionate ground. 6. It is lastly submitted by learned Counsel that in any case, in the impugned order dated 31.1.2006, the District Compassionate Committee in its said decision did not at all consider the case of the petitioner as was specifically directed by the order dated 29.6.2005 of this Court to decide the application of the petitioner one way or the other in accordance with law and thus for the said reason also the same needs to be quashed and the matter referred back to the District Compassionate Committee to consider the case of the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also sought to rely upon the circular dated 30.11.1984 and the circular dated 12.4.1984, in the first of which it is stated that if any question arises for relaxation of any of the provisions of the circulars relating to compassionate appointment, then it would be essential for the Administrative Department to obtain approval of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and in the subsequent circular it is stated that the provision for taking consent of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department with respect to appointment on compassionate ground has been discontinued. It is thus submitted by learned Counsel that it is now open to the concerned Department itself to relax the condition regarding qualification and even the approval of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department is not required. Learned Counsel also relies upon a decision dated 28.2.2001 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1209/2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Madhuri Kumari Sinha). 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had himself submitted an application with a school leaving certificate of being Class 7th pass showing his date of birth 2.2.1976 whereas, the respondent No. 5 was intermediate pass and in the school leaving certificate his date of birth was shown as 4.3.1973. It is thus submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification he also appears to have produced a forged certificate regarding age as admittedly he is elder brother and thus his date of birth cannot be three years after the date of birth of respondent No. 5. 9. It is further submitted on behalf of respondents that the Department has sufficiently complied with the direction of this Court given in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and all the facts were placed before the District Compassionate Committee including the decision of this Court dated 29.6.2005 passed in CWJC No. 7140/05 and the case of the petitioner had not been forwarded to the District Compassionate Committee since he did not have the eligibility requirement of minimum Class 8th pass as per the Government decision. 10. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is true that this Court had directed by its order dated 29.6.2005 to decide the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground one way or the other and it would have been better under the circumstances that his application and all papers ought to have been sent by the respondent-authorities to the District Compassionate Committee to consider and decide the matter instead of rejecting the same at their own level on the ground that he was only Class VII pass. However, the same does not affect the merit of the matter when the petitioner admittedly does not possess the minimum eligibility for appointment on a Class IV post. 11. Further, in para-2(ii) of the prevailing circular No. 13293 dated 5.10.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar relating to compassionate appointment, it is clearly provided that the case of a person who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post, shall be rejected at the outset. It is evident that the petitioner did not possess the relevant qualification of being Class 8th pass as per the circular dated 23.9.2002 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department which provides that minimum qualification for appointment of Class IV post would be Class 8th pass. It appears that for the said reason in terms of the circular dated 5.10.1991 the application of the petitioner was not sent to the District Compassionate Committee by the respondent-authorities since the petitioner prima facie did not fulfill the minimum educational qualification. 12. So far as the reliance by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the circulars dated 30.11.1984 and 12.4.1984 are concerned, by the circular No. 13293 dated 5.10.1991 all the previous directives and circulars issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department with respect to compassionate appointment have been superseded and thus no reliance can be placed by the petitioner on the said two circulars. As a matter of fact, the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner is based upon a complete misreading of the said two circulars and even those circulars do not provide a blanket power to relax any and every condition laid down for the purpose of appointment. 13. So far as the reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Madhuri Kumari Sinha (supra) is concerned, in that case the recommendation had been made by the District Compassionate Committee for appointment on Class 3 post but when the appointing authority found that the respondent of that case was not up to the mark in the matter of calculation and letter writing it took decision not to provide Class 3 post and ordered for appointment on Class IV post. The Division Bench of this Court, in the said circumstances held that when the respondent was found unable to write or make calculation she could be offered Class IV post and hence it was not open to her to challenge the said appointment made by the appointing authority. This Court is unable to understand how the said decision supports the case of the petitioner. The issue of being Class 8th pass or not for the purpose of appointment on Class IV post was not at all under consideration in the said matter rather it appears that she had been found possessing minimum requisite qualification of Class III post and only on the ground that she was unable to properly perform duties of Class III post, she was offered Class IV post. Thus the said decision is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner. 14. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case. The mere harping upon the order of this Court dated 29.6.2005 can be of no avail to the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner lacks even the minimum qualification for appointment on Class IV post. This Court does not issue futile writs since no useful purpose can be served by merely referring back the matter to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has failed to show that he possesses the requisite qualification for appointment on Class IV post even in a case of appointment on compassionate ground. 15. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.